K.Nagalingam v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and W.M.P(MD) No.17144 of 2025 K.Nagalingam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, O/o.District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

2.S.Murugesan ... Respondents Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Pa.Mu.(5)/22048/2019, dated 30.05.2025 on the file of the District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, the 1st respondent herein in respect of the property situated in Survey No.50/4A and Survey No.50/4B which is situated at Pudur Valasai Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivathilakar For R1 : Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking deletion of the name of private respondent in the UDR records pertains to Survey Nos. 50/4A and 50/4B.

2.Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Sivathilakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Gangatharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the UDR register prepared in the year 1986 reflects the names of the three persons

with regard to the Survey No.50/4, including the names of the petitioner and the second respondent's father Chellasamy. A perusal of averments contained in writ affidavit would make it clear there is a serious dispute with regard to the extent available to the petitioner in subject survey numbers. The petitioner relies on oral partition allegedly had taken place in the family. The validity of oral partition, the dispute with regard to extent etc., can be decided only by the Civil Court. The first respondent, in his order, relied on the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of his grandson wherein he confined his rights to 1 Acre 33 cents in Survey No.50/4A. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner himself admitted that he was not the owner of the entire extent of land in the above mentioned survey numbers.

Therefore, the first respondent rightly rejected the request of the petitioner seeking deletion of the name of private respondent's predecessor-in-interest in the UDR records. Further, the first respondent, in his order, relegated the petitioner to establish his rights by moving the Civil Court. In view of the same, the impugned order will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner's rights, if any, over the subject property. I do not find any error in the order passed by the first respondent.

to the petitioner to approach the civil Court to establish his definite right over specific extent in the subject property. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

13.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cp To The District Revenue Officer, O/o.District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

S.SOUNTHAR ,J

cp W.P.(MD)No.22048 of 2025 Dated: 13.08.2025