Selvam v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.17136 of 2025 Selvam ... Petitioner -Vs1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
1/5
6.K.Balakrishnan 7.Sundarrajan 8.Selvi 9.Arumugam ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in O.Mu.(P2)/6635/2025, dated 29.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry for this issue and pass order within the time frame may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ashok Kumar For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of the 3rd respondent dated 29.04.2025 and for consequential direction to conduct fresh enquiry for this issue and pass orders within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.
2/5
2.The petitioner complains that there is an encroachment made by the 6th respondent in the land in S.No.231/1 situated at Pogalur Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The 3rd respondent had conducted enquiry and during enquiry, it came to light that the dispute raised by the petitioner in respect of the land in question contending that it is a public pathway, is not correct and the same is not entered into the revenue records as 'public pathway'. Further, the land in question is a patta land and patta stands in the name of the private persons. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has passed an order on 29.04.2025, rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the authorities cannot take a decision in respect of the patta, which stands in the name of private persons. 3.
In view of the above, finding no error or infirmity in the order passed by the 3rd respondent, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. If at all the petitioner is having any grievance, it is for him to workout the civil right before the appropriate civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S., J.) & (G.A.M., J.) 12.08.
To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
4/5
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Yuva 12.08.2025 5/5