Madras High Court
WP(MD)/8528/2026 of Dharmaraj Vs The Revisional Authority / T on 15 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010420422026}
and WMP(MD).No.6917 of 2026
Dharmaraj
S/o. Karuppiah,
No.1/247, 1st Street,
T. Pudur,
Sivagangai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Revisional Authority / The District Revenue Officer Sivagangai Taluk and District.
2. The Appellate Authority / The Revenue Divisional Officer Sivagangai Taluk and District.
3. Singaram S
S/o. Sundaram,
No.1/387, Oxford Nagar,
T. Pudur,
Sivagangai Taluk and District.
..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 records relating to the impugned order of the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 in Pa.Mu. No.P1/20767/2025, dated 18.02.2026 and in Moo.Mu.A1/2862/2025 dated 31.07.2025 respectively and quash both and consequently direct the second respondent to restore the patta in the __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:22 pm )
WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026
name of petitioner and relegate the third respondent to approach Civil Court within the time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.H.Arumugam for
Mr. V. Devakumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, SGP For R1 And
R2
Mr.R. Raja for R-3
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
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Pa.Mu.No.P1/20767/2025, dated 18.02.2026 and Moo.Mu.A1/2862/2025 dated 31.07.2025 respectively and consequently to direct the second respondent to restore the patta in the name of the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to approach the Civil Court within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. Pursuant to an application filed by the third respondent, the second respondent, after hearing the petitioner herein, found that there was a dispute with regard to the title over the property covered by the patta and directed the parties to resolve the dispute before the competent Civil Court. However, inter alia, the second respondent had directed the restoration of the patta in the name of one Meenal, whose name was __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:22 pm )
WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026 reflected in the revenue records, as found in the “A” Register prepared during the UDR Proceedings. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, who confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. In this regard, under the provisions of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules, 1987, when the revenue authorities, while considering a claim for patta, find that there are rival claims involving a dispute over title, they ought not to adjudicate upon such disputed title. In such circumstances, the parties must be relegated to the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their respective claims. In the present case, having found that there was a dispute over title between the petitioner and the third respondent, the revenue authorities ought not to have directed the restoration of the patta in accordance with the entries in the UDR “A” Register. Instead, they ought to have left the parties to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court and refrained from altering the existing position in the revenue records pending adjudication of the dispute.
3. When the writ petition was taken up for admission, this Court, by an order dated 30.03.2026, granted an order of injunction in the writ miscellaneous petition seeking a stay. Be that as it may, it is further to be noted that by proceedings dated 14.03.2026, the Zonal Deputy __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:22 pm )
WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026 Tahsildar had mutated the revenue records in favour of third parties, which appears to be contrary to the purport of the impugned orders. This would indicate that the impugned orders have not been implemented in the manner contemplated therein. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are required to be kept in abeyance until the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is finally adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to keep the orders impugned herein in abeyance until the civil proceedings directed to be initiated by the parties are concluded. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:22 pm )
WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026 To
1. The Revisional Authority / The District Revenue Officer Sivagangai Taluk and District.
2. The Appellate Authority / The Revenue Divisional Officer Sivagangai Taluk and District. __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:22 pm )
WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. TSG WP(MD) No. 8528 of 2026 15-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:22 pm )