S.Melapatti Nadar Uravinmurai v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :23.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP (MD) No.22205 of 2024 S.Melapatti Nadar Uravinmurai Registration No.68/2001, Rep. by its President Durai. Kalidasan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

4. Paramasivan ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order made Ni.Mu.No.513836/ 2023/ 1/5

Ji5 dated 23.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent / Tahsildar to restore the revenue records in the name of the petitioner society in S.No.274/1 in Sandhaiyur Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. For Petitioner :Mr.T.Antony Arulraj For Respondent :Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.r.J.Karthick for R4

O R D E R

The petitioner is a registered society. The petitioner asserts that such society owns a property in Survey No.2741 of an extent of 7 acres and 74 cents. In relation to the said property, an order dated 23.08.2024 was issued by the District Revenue Officer restoring the revenue records to the status prevailing in the settlement 'A' Register. The said order is impugned herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order records that the petitioner did not appear. He points out that there is no evidence of receipt of notice by the petitioner and that the impugned order does not contain any discussion of efforts to serve notice on the petitioner and the outcome thereof.

2/5

3. Learned Government Advocate submits that inquiry notice was sent to Marisamy, President of the petitioner's society.

4. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the property was originally owned by 57 persons and that some of them conveyed the property to the mother of the fourth respondent.

5. On perusal of the inquiry notice, it is noticeable that it records that the fourth respondent, S.Paramasivam, received the said notice. It however does not contain any corresponding acknowledgement by the petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Revenue Officer for reconsideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein, a speaking order shall be issued within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such time, the status of the revenue record shall not be altered by the Tahsildar or other revenue officials. 3/5

6. This writ petition is disposed of on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.09.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

4/5

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

PKN 23.09.2025 5/5