Palanisamy v. The Tahsildar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.22404 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.17490 & 17491 of 2025 Palanisamy

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The Tahsildar, Mannapparai Taluk Office, Trichy District.

2. The Zonal Deputy Thasildar, Mannapparai Taluk Office, Trichy District.

3. Chinnadurai

4. Ammasi

5. Chinnaponnu

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is 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 Orders of the 1st Respondent vide his proceedings in Moo.Mu.Aa2/4225/2025 dated 23.06.2025 and consequential Impugned order of the 2nd Respondent vide his proceedings in T.R.2025/0103/15/493821TR dated 09.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal, consequently, direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore petitioner separate patta. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arunraj For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.M.Vignesh Kumar for R3 Mr.P.Saravana Kumar for R5 No appearance for R4

ORDER

An order dated 23.06.2025 of the Tahsildar and the consequential order dated 09.07.2025 of the Zonal Deputy Tashilar are assailed in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a joint patta was issued in the names of the private respondents herein without conducting a proper enquiry. He submits that a judgment and decree dated 30.03.2022 was issued in a partition suit filed by Perumayee, W/o.Chinnasamy and 5 others. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the petitioner herein in A.S.No.119 of 2025. In spite of such appeal being pending, learned counsel submits that the impugned orders were issued.

3. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the impugned orders were issued on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.250 of 2020. He further submits that the petitioner did not obtain an interim stay in the pending appeal suit.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that self acquired properties of the petitioner were included in the partition suit.

5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was issued in contravention of principles of natural justice, on perusal of such order, it appears that the objections of the petitioner dated 10.06.2025 were taken into consideration. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in view of the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. Therefore, by leaving at open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, this writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner files such appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Revenue Divisional Officer shell receive and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

10.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 3/4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J.

RJR To

1. The Tahsildar, Mannapparai Taluk Office, Trichy District.

2. The Zonal Deputy Thasildar, Mannapparai Taluk Office, Trichy District.

W.P.(MD)No.22404 of 2025 10.11.2025 4/4