Madras High Court

WA/3148/2026 of K.Semmalai Vs The District Revenue Officer on 13 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-10-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN

W.A.No.3148 of 2026

CNR:{HCMA011689162026}

1. K.Semmalai

2. K.Subramani

3. K.Patchaiyappan

4. K.Kamatchi

… Appellants

-vs-

1. The District Revenue Officer,

O/o. Villupuram District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District.

2. The Tahsildhar,

O/o. Gingee Taluk,

Gingee, Villupuram District - 604 152.

3. S.Kannan

4. K.Selvapathy

5. K.Valli

6. K.Senthamizh Selvi

7. K.Senniyammal

8. K.Dhanam

9. V.Ganthimathi

… Respondents

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.36366 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court and allow the above Writ Appeal.

For Appellants:

Mr.K.Kannan

For Respondents:

Mr.B.Sivakollappan, AGP for R1 & R2

Mr.G.Magesh Kumar for R9

*****

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

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…

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) The present Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging Writ Order dated 06.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.36366 of 2025. Writ Petitioners are appellants before this Court. Writ Petition had been instituted, challenging the order passed by District Revenue Officer (DRO), Villupuram dated 17.07.2025, relegating appellants to approach Civil Court to resolve the title dispute.

2. Learned counsel for appellants would mainly contend that application has been filed seeking mutation of Revenue Records. Therefore, Authorities ought to have considered the said application.

3. In the present case, a detailed enquiry was conducted by DRO, Villupuram by affording opportunity to all parties and DRO arrived at a conclusion that title dispute exists between the parties. Therefore, they were asked to approach competent Civil Court for adjudicating their civil rights.

4. This Court has to consider the correctness of findings rendered by DRO. Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 (in short ‘the Act, 1983’) states about issue of patta pass book. Sub- section (1) stipulates that “the Tahsildar shall issue a patta pass book to every owner in respect of land owned by him, on an application made by him in this behalf. Any application received under this section shall be acknowledged by the Tahsildar or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf”.

5. Rule 4 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 in an unambiguous terms states that “in the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a dispute concerning ownership of patta is already pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which impinge on personal laws or laws of succession and all the parties interested do not agree on the ownership in writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain order on the ownership from a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction before changing the entries as already recorded and existing in the various revenue records”.

6. From the above, it is clear that application under Section 3 of the Act, 1983 is maintainable only by the owner of an immovable property. In the event of existence of any dispute relating to ownership, parties have to establish their rights by approaching competent Civil Court of law. Procedures to be followed on receipt of application have also been set out under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN,J. AR

7. In the present case, DRO has conducted a detailed enquiry and found that two persons are claiming ownership in respect of the land and therefore, relegated parties to approach Civil Court of Law to establish their rights. Thus, the decision arrived at by DRO is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 1983 and Rules made thereunder. Considering the said aspect, Writ Court rightly dismissed Writ Petition. This Court does not find any further ground to interfere with the order of Writ Court. Consequently, the present Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR To:

1. The District Revenue Officer, O/o. Villupuram District Revenue Office, Villupuram District.

2. The Tahsildhar, O/o. Gingee Taluk, Gingee, Villupuram District - 604 152.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead