P.Vadivel v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER 1.P.Vadivel 2.Maria Arokiya Palraj ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy District.

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to restore the Patta granted by him in Patta No.1269 in the name of the petitioners, based on the petitioners' representation dated 28.04.2025. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader **** Page No. 1 of 5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to restore the patta in Patta No.1269 standing in the name of the petitioners, based on their representation dated 28.04.2025.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that originally, a joint patta in Patta No.572 was issued in the names of the petitioners and several others in respect of the land in R.S.No.32/1B1B. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application for issuance of a separate patta and for subdivision of their property.

3. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a separate patta in Patta No.1269 in the names of the petitioners by subdividing the property as R.S.No.32/1B1B2 vide proceedings dated 15.10.2024. However, the patta granted in the names of the petitioners in Patta No.1269 was later removed from the website and a new joint Patta No.1383 was issued once again, including the names of the petitioners, without putting the petitioners on notice.

Page No. 2 of 5

4. Thereafter, the petitioners sent a detailed representation dated 28.04.2025. Since the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioners were constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would clearly state that the records do not reveal that the petitioners were put on notice while passing the order for issuance of the new joint patta.

6. The second respondent ought to have issued notice to the petitioners with regard to the change of patta and the issuance of a new joint patta, as they are the patta holders. Without doing so, the second respondent removed the separate patta in Patta No.1269 issued in the names of the petitioners and issued a new joint patta in Patta No.1383, including the names of the petitioners. Copies of both pattas have been annexed to the typed set of papers filed along with this petition.

7. Even assuming that there was any irregularity in the issuance of the separate patta, the petitioners ought to have been informed of the same by issuance of notice. Therefore, the new joint patta in Patta No.1383 is Page No. 3 of 5

cancelled and the earlier separate patta in Patta No.1269 issued in the names of the petitioners is restored.

8. It is made clear that any further changes by the second respondent shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983.

9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

[K.SURENDER, J.] 17.12.2025 JEN Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy District.

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District.

Page No. 4 of 5

K.SURENDER , J.

JEN 17.12.2025 (2/2) Page No. 5 of 5