Disposed¶58

P.Rajkumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WP/7696/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta cancellation; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; appeal remedy; District Revenue Officer; Revenue Divisional Officer Ranipet; Tahsildar Arakkonam; Vellore; limitation exclusion; writ disposed without merits; W.P.No.7696 of 2017; W.P.No.16670 of 2015; S.No.370B/2; 0.27 acre; Muniyammal/Muniamma; Na.Ka.A4/4909/2015.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file appeal before the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer within two weeks; District Revenue Officer to pass orders within eight weeks after affording opportunity to petitioner and private respondents; writ-pendency period excluded for limitation; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶58

P.Rajkumar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 (Ref. No.Na.Ka.A4/4909/2015) of the first respondent cancelling the petitioner's patta should be quashed and a fresh enquiry conducted by the first respondent. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the impugned patta-cancellation order.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal before the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

Key takeaways

If such appeal is filed, the District Revenue Officer shall consider it and, after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the private respondents, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter.ratio¶53
The period during which the writ petition was pending before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M.Dhandapani, J.) on 01.09.2025 disposed of W.P.No.7696 of 2017 (P.Rajkumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet and others) without deciding merits: the petitioner's certiorarified-mandamus challenge under Article 226 to the RDO's order dated 23.02.2017 (Ref. No.Na.Ka.A4/4909/2015) cancelling his patta — passed pursuant to the Court's 12.06.2016 direction in W.P.No.16670 of 2015 — was redirected to the statutory appeal before the District Revenue Officer, to be filed within two weeks and decided within eight weeks after hearing the petitioner and the private respondents, with the writ-pendency period excluded from limitation; no costs; connected W.M.P.Nos.8408 of 2017 and 22558 & 22559 of 2018 closed.

¶1

W.P.No.7696 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.7696 of 2017 And

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.8408 of 2017 and 22558 & 22559 of 2018

P.Rajkumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶12

2 The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Arakkonam, Vellore District.

¶13

3 V.C.Mohan

¶14

4 V.C.Babu

¶15

5 V.C.Velu

¶16

6 Unnamalai

¶17

7 Suguna

¶18

8 S.Venkatesan

¶19

9 Savithri

¶20

10 Rani

¶21

11 Salammal

¶22

12 Dhayalan

¶23

13 Arumugham

¶24

14 Malliga

¶25

15 M.Velu

¶26

16 Lalitha

¶27

17 Chandra

¶28

1/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.7696 of 2017

¶31

18 Gowri

¶32

19 Rukkamma 20 P.Subramani 21 Shanthi 22 Rosiamma 23 R.Munusamy 24 Vijaya 25 Jamuna 26 Anusuya 27 S.Subadhra 28 S.Kuppan 29 S.Shankar 30 Muniamma 31 Kannagi

¶33

... Respondents

¶34

Prayer:

¶35

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 23.02.2017 bearing reference No.Na.Ka.A4/4909/2015 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent herein to conduct a fresh enquiry.

¶36

For Petitioner : Mr.Venkatesh Mohanraj

¶37

For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendiran for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader Mr.K.Venkateswaran for R4 to R8, R10 to R14, R16 to R18, R20, R21, R23 to R26 and R28 to R31

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of

¶40

2/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.7696 of 2017

¶43

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 23.02.2017 bearing reference No.Na.Ka.A4/4909/2015 and quash the same and

¶44

further direct the first respondent herein to conduct a fresh enquiry.

¶45

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the private respondents filed W.P.No.16670 of 2015, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as the third respondent, seeking to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider their representation dated 09.03.2015, wherein they claim that one Muniyammal is the owner of the property in S.No.370B/2 to an extent of 0.27 acre and patta was granted in favour of the petitioner, hence, for cancellation of patta, they made representation before the first respondent and since no order was passed, they filed W.P.No.16670 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 12.06.2016 issued direction to the first respondent to consider the said representation and to pass orders, pursuant to which, the first respondent passed the impugned order, cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶46

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that as against the impugned order, there is effective

¶47

3/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.7696 of 2017

¶50

appeal

¶51

remedy available to the petitioner before the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer. Hence, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, may grant liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the appeal remedy and issue direction to the District Revenue Officer to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time frame.

¶52

4.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents raise no serious objection.

¶53

5.Considering the limited request now made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, permits the petitioner to file appeal before the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the District Revenue Officer shall consider the same and after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the private respondents, pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The period during which the writ petition was pending

¶54

4/6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.7696 of 2017

¶57

before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation.

¶58