Pandiselvi v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P(MD)No.22495 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.17601 of 2025 Pandiselvi ... Petitioner .Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
4.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Officer, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
5.Solaiammal 1/7
6.Rajeshwari ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide proceeding in Na.Ka.No.6/92/2025, dated 9.6.2025 of mutation of patta in favour of the fifth respondent in respect of S.No.72/2A situated at Iluppakudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the fourth respondent not to entertain or register the Sale Agreement, dated 17.6.2025 between the respondents 5 and 6 or any document in respect of the said property till the disposal of O.SNO.155 or 2018 pending before the Sub Court, Devakottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathiyaseelan For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan 1 to 3 Govt. Advocate For Respondent-4 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Govt.Advocate
O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent allowing the application filed by the fifth respondent seeking cancellation of patta issued in favour of one Thanuskodi and his daughters in respect of the property in S.No. 72/2A situated at Iluppakudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
2/7
2.Mr.M.Gangatharan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the fourth respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.It is seen from the impugned order that the revenue records for the subject property originally stood in the name of Azhagappan, husband of fifth respondent. Subsequently, the same was transferred in the name of one Thanuskodi and his daughters Vanitha and Priyanka. Aggrieved by the same, the fifth respondent filed an application for cancellation of patta that stood in the name o Thanuskodi and others and for issuance of patta in her name. The third respondent, after hearing both the parties, namely, the applicant/fifth respondent and the pattadhars Thanuskodi and two others passed the impugned order cancelling the patta issued in the name of Thanuskodi and two others and restoring the patta in the name of Solai Ammal, wife of Azhagappan. Aggrived by the same, the Petitioner has come before this Court with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
3/7
4.The Petitioner has never challenged the revenue records of the subject property that originally stood in the name of Azhagappan or later revenue records that stood in the name of Thanuskodi and his two daughters Vanitha and Priyanka. The revenue records that stood in the name of Thanuskodi and two others was challenged by Solai Ammal and fifth respondent. Therefore, the Petitioner, who failed to challenge the revenue records that stood in the name of Thanuskodi and others, cannot challenge the order passed by the third respondent cancelling the revenue records that stood in the name of Thanuskodi and two others and restoration of patta in the name of fifth respondent/wife of Azhagappan.
5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the subject property originally belong to the fifth respondent grand father Mookiah Thevar and the Petitioner is none other than the one of the grand daughter of the said Mookiah Thevar through his son Shanmugam. If the Petitioner has any grievance, she has to work out her remedy in the manner known to law by moving the Civil Court or otherwise. The Petitioner, having failed to challenge the revenue records that stood in the name or Thanuskodi and two others, is not entitled to challenge the impugned order.
4/7
6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed,with liberty to the Petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.08.2025 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
4.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Officer, Karaikudi Taluk, 5/7
Sivagangai District.
S.SOUNTHAR.,J.
vsn ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.22495 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.17601 of 2025 6/7
18.08.2025 7/7