Disposed¶40

P.Rathinasabapathy v. The District Collector

Madras HC9 Sept 2025WP/7123/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution; mutation of revenue records cancelled; patta restoration; District Revenue Officer Namakkal order 15.02.2019 P.Mu.19844/2015 (G6); court auction purchase R.E.P.No.273 of 1981 in O.S.No.825 of 1966 District Munsif Court Tiruchengode; registered Will Document No.32 of 1997; O.S.No.16 of 2022 partition suit Principal District Court Namakkal; disposal subject to civil suit result; Tiruchengode Taluk; Nagarpalayam (Munjanoor) and Mettupalayam villages; W.M.P.No.7851 of 2019; W.M.P.No.11533 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief in respect of the subject properties, subject to the result of O.S.No.16 of 2022; connected Miscellaneous Petitions (W.M.P.No.7851 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.11533 of 2023) closed; no costs.

P.Rathinasabapathy Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the second respondent dated 15.02.2019 in proceedings P.Mu.19844/2015 (G6), cancelling the mutation of revenue records in favour of the petitioner and restoring the patta in the name of the fourth respondent's father, is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief in respect of the subject properties, subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2022.

¶39

Key takeaways

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.; order dated 09.09.2025) disposed of W.P.No.7123 of 2019 (P.Rathinasabapathy v. District Collector, Namakkal and others) without adjudicating the merits. The petition under Article 226 sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the second respondent's (District Revenue Officer, Namakkal) order dated 15.02.2019 in P.Mu.19844/2015 (G6), which cancelled the mutation of revenue records in the petitioner's favour and restored the patta to the fourth respondent's father. The land had been bought by the petitioner's mother at a court auction (R.E.P.No.273 of 1981 in O.S.No.825 of 1966, District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode), mutated in her name, and bequeathed to the petitioner by registered Will (Document No.32 of 1997 dated 29.09.1997); the first respondent had earlier restored the records to the fourth respondent's father after enquiry. In view of the fourth respondent's subsequent suit O.S.No.16 of 2022 (Principal District Court, Namakkal District) for partition and separate possession of the same properties, the court left the petitioner at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief subject to the result of that suit; connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed with no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.7123 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.7123 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.7851 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.11533 of 2023

P.Rathinasabapathy

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Namakkal District, Office of the District Collector, Namakkal.

¶13

The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal District, Office of the District Collector, Namakkal.

¶14

The Tahsildar,

¶15

Tiruchengode Taluk, Office of the Tahsildar, Tiruchengode.

¶16

K.Boopathirajan

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.7123 of 2019

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings P.Mu.19844/2015 (G6) dated 15.02.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to restore the patta Nos.809 in 86, Nagarpalayam Village (Munjanoor) and Patta Nos.3 and 29 in No.89, Mettupalayam Village in the name of the petitioner.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Ramesh

¶23

For Respondents: Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Government Advocate (for R1 to R3) Mr.C.Jagadish (for R4)

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.02.2019, thereby cancelling the mutation of revenue records in favour of the petitioner and restoring the patta in the name of the fourth respondent's father.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials

¶27

available on record.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.7123 of 2019

¶31

The subject land situated at S.Mettupalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Salem District, was purchased by the petitioner's mother through a Court auction in R.E.P.No.273 of 1981 in O.S.No.825 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. Thereafter, the revenue records were mutated in her name. Subsequently, she executed a Will, and the same was registered vide Document No.32 of 1997, dated 29.09.1997, thereby bequeathing the properties in favour of the petitioner.

¶32

Subsequently, the petitioner applied for mutation of revenue records, and accordingly, the properties were changed in the name of the petitioner. Originally, the said property belonged to the fourth respondent's father. The said property was auctioned and purchased by the petitioner's mother. As against the mutation of revenue records, the fourth respondent filed a petition before the first respondent, and after conducting an enquiry, the first respondent restored the properties in the name of the fourth respondent's father.

¶33

Though the entire order has been challenged before this Court, the

¶34

fourth respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.7123 of 2019

¶38

Principal District Court, Namakkal District, for partition and separate possession in respect of the very same properties. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records, subject to the result of the said suit.

¶39

In view of the above, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief in respect of the subject properties, subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2022.

¶40