Dismissed¶39

C.Rama Reddy v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2025WP/32999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: patta; Vari poromboke; Ryotwari patta 1939; Article 226; Certiorarified Mandamus; District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri; Hosur Taluk; Jogikalasamanapalli Village; S.Nos.70 & 71; Acre 2.18 cents; disputed questions of fact; civil suit declaration of title. Single-judge Madras HC decision dismissing a 2025 writ petition challenging rejection of a patta claim on 'Vari poromboke' classification; writ court declined to adjudicate factual title/possession disputes and directed the claimant to a civil suit for declaratory relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a civil suit, if so advised, seeking declaration that he absolutely owns the subject property; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.Nos.37020 & 37023 of 2025) closed. ¶39

C.Rama Reddy Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for issuance of patta — founded on the classification of the property as 'Vari poromboke' — can be interfered with by the writ court, notwithstanding the petitioner's claim of a 1939 Ryotwari patta and tax-paying possession. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Because the land in question has been classified as 'Vari poromboke', the question of interfering with the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for issuance of patta does not arise.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since there are disputed questions of fact involved, the question of interfering with the impugned order by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not arise.

¶38

Key takeaways

The only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the civil court seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition; liberty was accordingly granted to file such a civil suit, if so advised.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J), W.P.No.32999 of 2025, decided 01.12.2025 — Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 sought to quash the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri's order dated 28.07.2025 (ref. 'g/K/24412/2023/n...') rejecting the petitioner's patta claim for dry lands in S.Nos.70 and 71 (total extent Acre 2.18 cents) at Jogikalasamanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The rejection rested on the land's classification as 'Vari poromboke'; the petitioner relied on a Ryotwari patta issued to his forefathers in 1939 and tax-paying possession, while the respondents' counter denied both entitlement and possession. Held: given the 'Vari poromboke' classification and the disputed questions of fact, interference under Article 226 did not arise; the only remedy was a civil suit seeking declaration of absolute ownership. Petition dismissed with such liberty; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.No.32999 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.32999 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.37020 & 37023 of 2025

¶9

C.Rama Reddy ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District – 635 109. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned order “g/K/24412/2023/n $2 ” dated 28.07.2025 passed nd by the 2 respondent in connection with the petitioner’s patta claim for dry lands in S.No.70 and S.No.71 measuring to an total extend of Acre 2.18 cents,

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.32999 of 2025

¶18

situated at Jogikalasamanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and t o quash the same .

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohandoss for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

¶24

nd 28.07.2025 passed by the 2 respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s request for

¶25

issuance of patta in his name for the property morefully described in the prayer

¶26

to this writ petition.

¶27

The petitioner’s request for issuance of patta has been rejected on the

¶28

ground that the property has been classified as ‘Vari poromboke’. The petitioner

¶29

disputes the same as seen from the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition.

¶30

According to him, his forefathers were issued with Ryotwari patta in the year

¶31

1939 and thereafter, he and others are in possession of the said property by

¶32

Page No.2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.32999 of 2025

¶35

paying taxes. However, the same has been disputed by the respondents as seen

¶36

from the counter filed before this Court, wherein they have categorically stated

¶37

that the land in question is classified as ‘Vari poromboke’ and therefore, the question of granting patta in favour of the petitioner does not arise. The respon d ents have also stated in the counter that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject lands. Since the lan d in question has been classified as

¶38

‘Vari poromboke’, the question of interfering with the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s request for issuance of patta does not arise. The only remedy i f at all available to the petitioner is to approach the civil court seeking f or declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. Since there are disputed questions of fact involved, the question of interfering with the impugned order by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not arise.

¶39