Dismissed

Dr. M.Kunchithapatham v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2025WP/30303/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a patta application by revenue authorities. The court held that since the dispute involved factual ownership claims and the temple, the alleged owner, was not made a party to the suit or the revenue proceedings, there was no infirmity in the orders. The petition was dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit for declaration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach Civil Court for declaration of ownership of the property.

Dr. M.Kunchithapatham Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.12.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

¶7

Dr.M.Kunchithapatham ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector,

¶10

Chennai District.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer,

¶12

Chennai – 01.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Revenue Division, Guindy, Chennai – 32.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai – 28.

¶15

5.The Joint Sub Registrar, Chennai Central Joint – I, Chennai.

¶16

Page No.1 of 8

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

6.Gowri

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records in proceedings No. Na.Ka.No.A2/1186/2022 dated 21.04.2023 on th rd the file of 4 respondent and confirmed by the order of the 3 respondent in proceedings No.S e.Mu .No.A1/257/2023 dated 05.09.2023 and nd confirmed by the order of the 2 respondent proceedings No. Na.Ka.J2/e2959324/2025 dated 19.06.2025 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 4 th respondent issue a patta in the name of petitioner’s for property situated at Old S.No.960, R.S.No.3797/10 measuring an extent of 400 sq.ft. at Door No.15, No.B, Kamarajar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

¶22

For Petitioner : Ms.E.Yuvarani For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate [R1 to R4] *****

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders

¶25

passed by the respective respondents dated 21.04.2023, 05.09.2023 and

¶26

Page No.2 of 8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

¶29

19.06.2025.

¶30

The respective respondents have rejected the petitioner’s

¶31

request for grant of patta for the property morefully described in the

¶32

prayer to this writ petition, on the ground that the said property belongs to a temple. The petitioner has sought for issuance of patta in his name based on a compromise decree passed by the Civil Court. In the said compromise decree, the temple whom the official respondents claim to be

¶33

the owner of the property as seen from the counter filed before this Court,

¶34

is not a party to the said suit. In the counter filed by the 4 th respondent before this Court, a categorical statement has been made in paragraph

¶35

No.5 stating that S.Gopalsamy Iyengar and M.Vinayaga Mudaliar,

¶36

trustees, as per the revenue records, are the registered holders of the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. B efore the respective respondents, the aforesaid temple was not made as a party by

¶37

the petitioner. Even before this Court, the said temple is not a party. It is

¶38

Page No.3 of 8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

¶41

also to be noticed that only under a money suit, a compromise decree was

¶42

passed, wherein it was held that the property, which is the subject matter

¶43

of this writ petition, was allotted to the petitioner. Only based on the said compromise decree obtained in a money suit, the petitioner had sought for patta in his favour, which has been rejected on the ground that the property belongs to S.Gopalsamy Iyengar and M.Vinayaga Mudaliar,

¶44

trustees, of the temple.

¶45

Admittedly, the petitioner has also not put on notice the said

¶46

temple about hi s application seeking for issuance of patta in his name, though the petitioner was made aware by the official respondents that the

¶47

property according to them is under the ownership of the temple. When

¶48

there are disputed question of facts involved, this Court does not find any

¶49

infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respective respondents. If

¶50

at all the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Civil

¶51

Court seeking for a declaration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of

¶52

Page No.4 of 8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

¶55

thh

¶56

thh e property, for which, the patta is sought for. This Court, therefore does

¶57

not find any merit in this writ petition and also does not find any infirmity

¶58

in the orders, which are challenged in this writ petition.

¶59

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is

¶60

granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for declaration to declare that the petititioner is the owner of the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition and thereafter, if successful in the civil

¶61

suit, seek patta. No costs.

¶62

01.12.2025

¶63

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp

¶64

Page No.5 of 8

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

¶67

¶68

1.The District Collector, Chennai District.

¶69

2.The District Revenue Officer, Chennai – 01.

¶70

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Revenue Division, Guindy, Chennai – 32.

¶71

4.The Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai – 28.

¶72

5.The Joint Sub Registrar, Chennai Central Joint – I, Chennai.

¶73

Page No.6 of 8

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

¶76

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶77

¶78

W.P.No.30303 of 202 5

¶79

Page No.7 of 8

¶80

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30303 of 2025

01.12.2025

Page No.8 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dr. M.Kunchithapatham v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M.Kunchithapatham v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjani L Vs Union of India

Ramakrishnan.B Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police

Eswaran .M.R Vs The Secretary to Government

Mehra Computer Systems Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of GST and central Excise

Madheswari Vs the District Collector

C.Rama Reddy Vs the District Collector