Latha v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD)No.27092 of 2025 Latha ... Petitioner -vs1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Division, Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
4.Thevaraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed by the third respondent through SMS dated 22.09.2025 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind and consequently, direct the third respondent to rectify the erroneous patta
entry standing in the name of Thevaraj in Patta No.2639 for Survey No.138/8B, Puliyankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, by conducting enquiry within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Ms.C.Geetha For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned rejection order passed by the third respondent through SMS dated 22.09.2025, and consequently, to direct the third respondent to rectify the erroneous patta entry in the name of Thevaraj in Patta No.2639 for Survey No.138/8B, Puliyankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, by conducting an enquiry within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. According to the petitioner, she is the rightful owner of the land in Survey No.138/8B, Puliyankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, and the corresponding patta is incorrectly recorded in the name of Thevaraj under Patta
No.2639. The petitioner made a request for correction of the patta, but the third respondent rejected the claim through an SMS dated 22.09.2025, which is arbitrary, illegal, and without due consideration of the petitioner's entitlement. The impugned rejection order is therefore liable to be quashed, as it violates the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's statutory and legal rights. The third respondent is duty-bound to rectify the patta entry upon due enquiry, in accordance with law, and to ensure that the patta reflects the correct ownership of the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that no proper documents have been filed along with the representation to substantiate the claim made by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits a fresh representation ventilating all her grievances before the third respondent, the same will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will file a fresh representation along with the relevant documents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. In the event of filing a fresh representation along with the necessary documents within the aforesaid time limit, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the third respondent on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period eight weeks thereafter.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No (K.SURENDER, J.) Index : Yes / No 08.01.2026 smn2 To:- 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Division, Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
K.SURENDER , J.
smn2 08.01.2026