P.Subramanian Vs The District Revenue Officer

Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.C1/1730/2024, dated 03.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the first respondent to include the legal heirs of Palappa Gounder, namely P.Murugan and P.Subramanian in the UDR register and other revenue records in chitta and computer patta with respect to survey No.239 to an extent of 3.21 ¾ Acres in Patta No. 734 in Punchai Kadambankurichi Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram

¶21

For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of the name of the fourth respondent's father, Velusamy from the revenue records pertaining to the subject property situated in Survey No.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.15809 of 2025

¶27

239, to an extent of 3.21 ¾ Acres in Patta No.734, Punchai Kadambankurichi Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.

¶28

2.Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is passed against the fourth respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

¶29

3.By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶30

4.The request made by the petitioner for deletion of fourth respondent's father's name was rejected on the ground that the fourth respondent and his siblings laid a suit for partition of their ¼ share in the subject property in O.S.No.305 of 2022, on the file of District Court, Karur and the same was pending. When the civil suit pertaining to the rights of the fourth respondent and his siblings is pending before the Civil Court, the petitioner is not entitled to seek deletion of the fourth

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.15809 of 2025

¶34

respondent's father's name from the revenue records. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the first respondent relegating the parties to adjudicate the issue before the Civil Court.

¶35

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the admission made by the fourth respondent and his siblings, in the plaint filed by them, that the petitioner's semblance of right over the subject property is proved and hence, the petitioner is entitled to get his name included in the revenue records. Therefore, according to him, the first respondent may be directed to include the name of the petitioner in the revenue records pertains to the subject property.

¶36

6.It is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner submitted an application seeking deletion of the fourth respondent's father's name from the revenue records, but he never sought for inclusion of his name. Therefore, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to seek such relief, which he had failed to seek before the authority concerned. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be considered at this stage. However, it is open to the

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.15809 of 2025

¶40

petitioner to make a separate application before the competent authority for inclusion of his name in the revenue records, if he is so advised. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, the concerned authority shall consider it, on its own merits, without being influenced in any way by the observations made in this writ petition.

¶41