V.Sampath Kumar v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.02.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER V.Sampath Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Puthukottai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Puthukottai.

3.The Tahsildar, Alangudi.

4.Appavoo 5.Kennedy 6.Pushpam 7.Rajendran 8.Bharathiraja 9.Thangarasu 10.Amutha 11.Padmavathy 12.Mahalakshmi Page No. 1 of 5

13.Prabhakaran 14.Mr.Stalin Previous Tahsildar at Alangudi ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai dated 19.09.2019 issued in Na.Ka.No.4557/2015/D5 and that of the Revenue Divisional officer, Pudukottai dated 04.03.2015 issued in Ne.Mu.A6/3491/2013 and that of the Tahsildar, Alangudi dated 18.01.2013 in Tho.Mu.P.T.R.143/2013/A6 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the first to third respondents to restore the patta and revenue records in the individual name of the petitioner's father Shri K.O.K.Vaidyanathan Chettiar for the lands in Survey No.242/1 Keeramangalam and post, Alangudi Taluk, Puthukottai District admeasuring 1.83 acres.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate ****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition was allowed on 19.10.2024 by setting aside the impugned orders and directing the third respondent to delete the names of the fourth to ninth respondents from the patta in respect of Survey No. Page No. 2 of 5

242/1, measuring an extent of 1.83 acres. Further, the matter was directed to be listed for reporting compliance. Accordingly, the case is listed today under the caption "for reporting compliance".

2. In pursuance of the orders of this Court directing deletion of the names of the fourth to ninth respondents from the patta in respect of the land in Survey No.242/1, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first to third respondents would submit that the order has been complied with. However, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the names of the fourth to ninth respondents have been deleted and patta has been issued in the name of the petitioner in respect of the same property. It is also submitted that owing to the software system, the survey number has been automatically shown as Survey No.242/1A, which is a subdivision number and that Survey No.242/1 and Survey No.242/1A refer to one and the same property.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that civil disputes are pending before the Civil Court and the survey number in dispute is Survey No.242/1 and therefore, showing the property as Survey No.242/1A would create a problem.

Page No. 3 of 5

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that an official communication would be sent to the Civil Court and to the petitioner stating that Survey No.242/1 and Survey No.242/1A refer to one and the same property of the petitioner.

5. The submissions are recorded. In view of the compliance reported and the undertaking recorded, no further listing for reporting compliance is necessary.

[K.SURENDER, J.] 16.02.2026 JEN To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Puthukottai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Puthukottai.

3.The Tahsildar, Alangudi.

Page No. 4 of 5

K.SURENDER , J.

JEN 16.02.2026 Page No. 5 of 5