A.Suganya Devi v. The District Revenue Officer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :11.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and WMP (MD) Nos.26611 and 26612 of 2025

1. A.Suganya Devi

2. Vijaya Kumar

3. Mathiyalagan

4. Sheik Mohammed Rashid ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. The District Revenue Officer, Dindugul, Dindugul District.

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

3. The Tahsildhar, Nilakkattai Taluk,

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Kombaipatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, 1/5

5. Maharajan ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dinduqul in Na.Ka.No.4318/2024 / Aa4 dated 25.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to maintain the revenue records including Patta and subdivisions in respect of Sy.No.296/8A1 (admeasuring 78 cents), Kombaipatti Village, Nilakottal Taluk, Dindugul District in the name of the writ petitioners.

.

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Dilipkumar For Respondents :Mr.B.Ramanathan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R4

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2025 issued by the second respondent.

2. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to the first petitioner, in whose name the patta stood, or to petitioners 2 to 4, whose immediate vendors' names are reflected in the 2/5

patta. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer mutated the revenue records to the pre-UDR status as if he held the powers of the District Revenue Officer. Hence, the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 fairly concedes that there is no specific averment in the impugned proceedings to indicate that notice was served on the petitioner.

4.Since the proceeding was passed by the second respondent without jurisdiction and the petitioners were not put on notice before the impugned proceeding was passed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall issue notice to all concerned parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

3/5

5. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (K.SURENDER, J) 11.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Dindugul, Dindugul District.

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

3. The Tahsildhar, Nilakkattai Taluk,

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Kombaipatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, 4/5

K.SURENDER, J.

PKN 11.02.2026 5/5