Yagappan v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :06.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Yagappan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

3. The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

... 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 relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent/Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk in Moo.Mu.No. 674/2021/Aa2 dated 15.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the patta for the property comprised in Survey No.582/8, measuring 0.22.50 Hectare (53 cents), A.Vellodu Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, either in the name of the petitioner or in the name of the original owner Tmt. Sandikkammal.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner assails an order dated 15.08.2025 of the Tahsildar rejecting the petitioner's request for a patta in respect of land in survey No.582/8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the patta should have been restored in the name of the original pattadar, Sandikkammal, even if the request of the petitioner had been rejected. Instead, he states that the patta now stands in the name of Sebasthiar. He also points out that notice was sent to the legal heirs of Sebasthiar, but that there was no representation on behalf of such legal heirs.

2. Learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for all the respondents. He points out that the request of the petitioner was rejected because the petitioner did not produce any registered documents to establish his right to patta.

2/5

3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the order was passed on a petition filed by the petitioner for grant of patta to him. After recording that the petitioner did not produce any registered documents, the request was rejected. It is unclear from the order as to the basis on which the patta was transferred from Sandikkammal/Sandhirakkam to Sebasthiar. The petitioner asserts that such mutation was done wrongly. If so, the petitioner should assail the order before the Revenue Divisional Officer by joining the legal heirs of Sebasthiar, who is said to have passed away, as parties thereto. By granting leave to the petitioner to file such appeal, this Writ Petition is disposed of. If such appeal is lodged within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation. No costs. NCS : Yes/No 06.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd 3/5

To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

3. The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

4/5

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN 06.11.2025 5/5