WP(MD)/19041/2026 of S.Saraswathy Vs The District Revenue Officer on 13 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

2. The Writ Petition in WP(MD)No.19041 of 2026 is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in 2025-0153/23/001328TR dated 12.06.2025, 2025/0153/23/003118TR

dated

10.12.2025

and 2026/0153/23/000072TR dated 09.01.2026 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner and her family members (i.e.,) legal heir of V.R.Senthilnathan Chettiyar.

3. The Writ Petition in WP(MD)No.28198 of 2026 is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in 2025/0153/23/001328TR dated 12.06.2025, dated

10.12.2025

and 2026/0153/23/000072TR dated 09.01.2026 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner and her family members, (i.e.), legal heir of V.R.Sethilnathan Chettiyar.

4. The claim of the petitioner is that the mutation of the revenue records had taken place at the behest of the private respondents without any notice to the patta holders. It is his further claim that, in a partition suit filed between the brothers, namely, V.R.Senthil Nathan Chettiyar and V.R.Arunachala Chettiyar, a settlement was arrived at and, as per the settlement, pattas were mutated in favour of the respective brothers and thereafter further mutated in favour of the legal heirs of the respective brothers. However, it is the case of the respondents that the settlement entered into between the brothers does not relate to the suit properties. These disputes between the parties cannot be entered into by this Court in a writ petition. Such a position has already been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments in Kuppuswami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer and others reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 and Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited v. R.Perumalswamy and others reported in 2021 (11) SCC 98.

5. Further, this Court is of the view that, in view of the disputes noted above with regard to the title to the property, the issue cannot be remanded to the revenue authorities, in view of the categorical mandate of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Patta Pass Book Act, which envisages that, when a dispute relating to title is noticed, the revenue authorities would have to refrain from proceeding further and that patta proceedings could be carried out only when there is consent between the parties.

6. In that regard, without entering into the disputes raised between the parties and leaving it open to the parties to adjudicate their rights over the properties before the Civil Court, this Court is of the view that the patta proceedings challenged before this Court shall be kept in abeyance and that there shall be no mutation of pattas in respect of the lands covered by the impugned pattas. The same shall be subject to the civil proceedings to be initiated by the respective parties.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Nsr To:

1. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

3. The Thasildar, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

K.KUMARESH BABU J. Nsr WP(MD) Nos.19041 and 28198 of 2026 13-10-2026