Madras High Court
WP(MD)/9469/2026 of Veluchamy P Vs The District Revenue Officer on 12 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010466402026}
and
WMP(MD) No.7567 of 2026
P.Veluchamy,
S/o. Late Pitchai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Tahsildar,
Dindigul West,
Dindigul.
4. M.Ravichandran,
S/o. Maruthamuthu
5. Deenathayalan,
S/o. Maruthamuthu
6. Ambath Rani,
W/o. Sathyanathan
7. V.Shanmugam,
S/o. Velayutham Chettiyar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent’s proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2200476/2024/Aa4 dated 24.02.2026 and quash the same, confirm the order of the 2nd respondent and consequently __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026
direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner and the 4th to 6th respondents forthwith jointly or separately.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Alagarsamy
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
Special Government Pleader
for RR1 to 3
Mr.R.R.Kannan
for RR4 to 7
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
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
Seeking to quash the order of the first respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2200476/2024/Aa4, dated 24.02.2026, who has confirmed the order of the second respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner and the fourth to sixth respondents forthwith jointly or separately.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject property of the land was an ancestral property and by an oral partition, the petitioner’s father was given a share on 19.50 cents of defined lands, of which he had sold an extent of 15 cents in the year 1975 in favour of one Chinnathayammal. By a settlement deed dated 16.11.2011, the aforesaid property had been settled in favour of her sons and daughter, who in turn had sold the same in favour of the seventh respondent under a registered sale deed in the year 2018. __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026
3. He would submit that having conveyed only 15 cents of the property that devolved upon his father, the successors in interest are claiming right and title in respect of the entire 19.50 cents, which vested with the petitioner’s father, as patta was granted for the entire 19.50 cents. Hence, he had filed an appeal before the second respondent, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, who after enquiry, set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to grant patta based upon the sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner. However, on appeal, the first respondent had set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and directed restoration of the status that prevailed prior to the order of the second respondent and left it open to the parties to approach the civil Court.
4. He would submit that only 15 cents of the entire 19.50 cents was sold and therefore, patta could not have been issued in favour of the successor in interest for the entire 19.50 cents and the patta should have been issued only in respect of 15 cents in favour of the successor in interest and in respect of the balance 4.5 cents, patta should be issued in favour of the petitioner as being the successor in interest from his father, who had retained the said portion of land. Hence, he would seek indulgence of this Court in setting aside the order impugned in this writ petition. __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026
5. Countering his arguments, Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that even though the extent of the land was shown as 15 cents, what had been conveyed is defined boundaries and in that regard, he would submit that the entire 19.50 cents, that was allotted to the share of the petitioner’s father, had been sold by him to his predecessor in interest and he would submit that there is no error in the order of the second respondent in granting patta in favour of the successor in interest and the same had been rightly affirmed so by the first respondent.
6. He would submit that it is a trite law that boundaries prevail the extent and in that regard, he would submit that it is only for the petitioner to substantiate the same before the civil Court that what was sold by a defined boundary only covers 15 cents and not more than that. Hence, he would submit that there is no error in the order, which requires interference by this Court.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would support the impugned order by contesting that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot enter __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026 upon the disputed facts of the case and it is only be appropriate for the party, who disputes the title to approach the civil Court to remedy his grievance. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
9. The case of the petitioner is that under a partition among the co-parceners, the petitioner’s father was given a defined share of 19.50 cents with defined boundaries. It is his case that only 15 cents of the 19.50 cents was sold by the petitioner’s father and he had retained 4.50 cents. On the other hand, it is the case of the private respondents that as per the boundaries, they were entitled to more than the extent that had been specified in the sale deed and that the father of the petitioner, five decades back, had sold the entire property in favour of one Chinnathayammal from whom, respondents 4 to 7 derived title.
10. The claim that is made by the petitioner is on a disputed set of facts, which could not be gone into by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No grounds of judicial review have been made out by the petitioner and the __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026 claim made by the petitioner and the private respondents could only be adjudicated by a competent civil Court. It is for the petitioner to establish that his father had only sold 15 cents based upon the defined boundaries by way of substantive oral and documentary evidence and in that regard, this Court also do not find any infirmity with the order impugned herein, as it also requires the parties to substantiate their right before the competent civil forum.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any merit in the writ petition.
12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to substantiate his right before a competent civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ABR __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026 To
1. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3. The Tahsildar, Dindigul West, Dindigul. __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )
WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. ABR WP(MD) No. 9469 of 2026 12-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:16:51 pm )