Muhammed Mansoora v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :10.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and WMP (MD) No.26030 of 2025

1. Muhammed Mansoora

2. Muhammad Muneera ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

3. The Tahsildar, Kilakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

4. The Deputy Tahsildar, Kilakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

5. The Village Administrative Officer, Kilakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

6. Mohamed Farook

7. Abdullah Sahib ... Respondent(s) 1/5

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned patta proceeding bearing Ref.No. 2025/0103/27/229743TR dated 19.10.2025 issued by the 4th Respondent and quash the same as illegal and void and direct the Respondents 1 to 5th to restore the Patta in the petitioners name. For Petitioner :Mr. R.Mathava Selvam For Respondents :Mr.B.Ramanathan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R5 Mr.T.Veerakumar for R6 & R7

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the patta transfer order dated 19.10.2025 passed by the third respondent/Tahsildar in favour of the respondents 6 and 7.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

2/5

3. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was neither served with notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing during the inquiry for patta transfer, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 refuted the above contention and submitted that the petitioners had in fact appeared in the inquiry proceedings and only thereafter the patta transfer order came to be passed.

5. A perusal of the affidavit, particularly paragraph 10, reveals that the second petitioner had appeared for the inquiry proceedings before the Tahsildar/third respondent on 07.10.2025, and only thereafter the impugned orders were passed. Furthermore, the impugned order is an appealable order under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. Since an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in the writ jurisdiction. 3/5

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(K.SURENDER, J) 10.12.2025 2/2 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN To

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

3. The Tahsildar, Kilakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

4. The Deputy Tahsildar, Kilakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

5. The Village Administrative Officer, Kilakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

K.SURENDER, J.

PKN 10.12.2025 2/2 5/5