Urmila Bhuvanesh v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :16.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD)No.25131 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.19718 & 19719 of 2025
1. Urmila Bhuvanesh,
2. Poornima Sivaprasad.
... Petitioners Vs
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai West, Madurai District.
2. The Thasildhar, Madurai West, Madurai District.
3. Jeevanandam ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent dated 05.08.2025 in proceedings Pa.Mu.No.2356481/2024/K, quash the same as the same is arbitrary, ultravires, in violation of the order dated 27.02.2025 made in W.P. Nos. 4732 to 4739 of 2023 and consequently, revert back the patta in the names of the petitioner i.e. Urmila Bhuvanesh in respect of the 1/5
properties comprised in T.S. No. 128 (old S.No. 58/7B Pt), T.S. No. 133 (old S.No. 58/8CPt) to an extent of 0.0400.0 hectares, 0.0705.0 hectares respectively, situated at Kochadai, Madurai District. For Petitioner : Mr. R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate for R1 & R2
O R D E R
The petitioners assail an order dated 05.08.2025 of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on an earlier order dated 27.02.2025 of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.4732 of 2023. He points out that this Court noticed the submission that the petitioners had purchased 60 cents out of the total extent of one acre under four sale deeds and that the remaining 40 cents was bequeathed to the petitioners under a Will executed by Rameela. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order contains no reference to the said Will. On that ground, he seeks remand of the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer. He also submits that the impugned order refers to Rameela Sivanath as the pattathar of survey No.128 and Sivanath as the pattathar of survey Nos. 2/5
133 and 134. Since both these persons died, he submits that interference with the impugned order is warranted.
3. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioners were heard before such order was issued. While learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Will was not taken into consideration, even as per the earlier order of this Court, the Will deals with only 40 cents. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, a revision before the District Revenue Officer lies against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioners are within the period of limitation. In these circumstances, I decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioners to file a revision before the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer in accordance with law. If such revision is filed, the District Revenue Officer shall dispose of the same 3/5
within a period of four (4) months from the receipt thereof after providing a reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned. No costs. W.M.P.(MD) No.19718 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
NCS : Yes/No 16.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai West, Madurai District.
2. The Thasildhar, Madurai West, Madurai District.
Copy to:
The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.
4/5
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.
apd ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.25131 of 2025 16.09.2025 5/5