Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29958/2026 of Nandhakumar R Vs The District Revenue Officer on 16 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29958 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 29958 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011465752026}
AND
WMP(MD) No. 22845 of 2026
R.Nandhakumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Office of District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2. V.Murugeshan
..Respondent(s)
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 of the 1st respondent’s impugned order in Ni.Mu.
Aa1/E-3941378/2025 dated 23.09.2026 and quash the same as devoid of merits and directing the 1st respondent to grant patta in the petitioner’s mother’s name Mrs.Vijayalakshmi in respect of the properties in Survey No.836/5 an extent of 0.28.50 Hectares and Survey No.836/4 an extent of 0.26.50 Hectares in Rajapalayam Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District, within the period as stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner
:Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R1
:Mr.I.Pinaygash
Special Government Pleader
WP(MD) No. 29958 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 23.09.2026 and for a consequential direction to grant patta in favour of the petitioners’ mother in respect of the subject property.
2. Heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the claim of the petitioner had been negatived with a direction to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent civil Court, which cannot be found fault with in view of Rule 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book, Rules 1987, in which it is stated that the Tahsildar has no power to adjudicate the issue of title between the parties.
4. The said provision had also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2021 (11) SCC 98, in the case
WP(MD) No. 29958 of 2026 of M/s. Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited v. R. Perumalswamy and others, and had reiterated the same.
5. In such view of the matter, this Court find do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order directing the parties to approach the civil Court for remedying their grievances. Accordingly, affirming the liberty granted in the impugned order, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before a competent civil Court. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cmr To
1. The District Revenue Officer, Office of District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
WP(MD) No. 29958 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. cmr WP(MD) No. 29958 of 2026 16-10-2026