Ramkumar v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :30.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Ramkumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate Building, Thoothukudi District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
3. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.
4. T.Kovilpitchai ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry in respect of forged certificate issued by the 3rd respondent i.e., Tahsildar dated 02.03.2022 in the light of 2nd respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No. A7/3602/2024 dated 21.11.2024 and to conclude the same within time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 1/5
For Petitioner :Mr. D.S.Haroon Rasheed For Respondents :Mr.B.Saravanan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.M.P.Senthil for R4
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks a direction for an inquiry in respect of the allegedly forged certificate issued by the third respondent / Tahsildar on 02.03.2022.
2. In the affidavit in support of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner is serving as the General Secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha. It is also stated that there is a property in Survey No.292/26 at Sri Venkateswarapuram village, Sathankulam Taluk, which belongs to 24 persons under Patta No.1644 of an extent of one acre and 92 cents. According to the petitioner, there is a common well belonging to all the villagers. It is further alleged that the fourth respondent obtained a forged certificate from the third respondent and thereafter sold the property to third parties. After submitting a complaint/representation in that regard, the present writ petition has been filed.
2/5
3. Learned Additioal Government Pleader has placed on record an order dated 02.07.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.4778 of 2025. He points out that said writ petition was filed by Siluvai Kani and 2 others challenging an inquiry notice of the Revenue Divisional Officer. By referring to page 25 of the typed set, he submits that the same notice finds place in the petitioner's typed set. Therefore, he contends that the issue raised by the petitioner was previously dealt with in the said writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner has not approached this court bonafide and that he is fighting a proxy battle on behalf of R.Ratheesh Kumar, who was the third respondent in the earlier writ petition. By placing on record a representation dated 16.12.2024 from the petitioner to the Tahsildar, he points out that such representation makes reference to the alleged rights of Ratheesh Kumar.
5. Upon considering the aforesaid, there are doubts with regard to the motive for filing the present writ petition. On examining the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has no locus standi to 3/5
complain about the certificate issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent. This petition has not been filed as a public interest litigation. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. 30.10.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN To
1. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate Building, Thoothukudi District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
3. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.
4/5
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN 30.10.2025 5/5