Dismissed¶50

Subramani.S v. The District Revenue Officer/

Madras HC19 Jun 2025WP(MD)/17022/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: UDR entry cancellation; restoration of patta; oral partition; revenue authority jurisdiction; title dispute; certiorari; Article 226; Theni District; Periyakulam; Devadanapatti Bit-II Village; S.No.1987/1B; Patta No.87 dated 27.6.1974; O.S.No.12 of 2017 dismissed as not pressed; Vishwas Footwear Company Limited 2011(5)CTC 94; W.P(MD)No.17022 of 2022; W.M.P(MD)No.12389 of 2022; Justice S. Sounthar; decided 19.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Petitioner; Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to establish exclusive right by appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court; connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P(MD)No.12389 of 2022) closed; no costs. ¶50

Subramani.S Vs The District Revenue Officer/ — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent was justified in cancelling the UDR entry in favour of the Petitioner and restoring the revenue records in the names of eight persons notwithstanding the Petitioner's plea of oral partition and the asserted serious dispute of title. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Patta No.87 dated 27.6.1974 establishes that patta for the subject property originally stood in the names of eight persons including the fourth respondent's father Pa.Ka.Veeri Chettiar, and the Petitioner produced no documents to substantiate exclusive allotment to his father under the alleged oral partition.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Revenue officials cannot go into the question of the validity of the oral partition pleaded by the Petitioner; questions of title must be worked out before the competent civil forum.

¶44

Key takeaways

The first respondent was justified in cancelling the UDR entry standing in the Petitioner's name and restoring the revenue records in the name of Veeri Chettiyar and seven others as they stood before the UDR updation; there is no error in the impugned order.ratio¶49
The Petitioner is at liberty to establish his alleged exclusive right over the subject property by filing an appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Certiorari under Article 226 against the District Revenue Officer's order in Ni.Mu.No.12336/2021/D5 dated 9.6.2022 cancelling the Petitioner's UDR entry in respect of 0.72.0 hectares in S.No.1987/1B, Devadanapatti Bit-II Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, and restoring the records to eight pattadhars including the fourth respondent's father. Old Patta No.87 dated 27.6.1974 showed the land stood in the names of eight persons including the fathers/predecessors of both contesting branches; the Petitioner produced no document proving the alleged oral partition conferring exclusive rights on his father, and his earlier injunction suit (O.S.No.12 of 2017, District Munsif, Periyakulam) was dismissed as not pressed. Applying Vishwas Footwear Company Limited vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram, 2011(5)CTC 94, the Court held that revenue officials cannot decide questions of title or the validity of an oral partition. Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to the Petitioner to establish exclusive title before the competent Civil Court; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No17022 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :19.06 .2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.17022 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.12389 of 2022

¶8

S.Subramani ... Petitioner

¶9

.Vs.

¶10

1.The District Revenue Officer, Additional District Administrative Magistrate, Theni District,

¶11

Theni.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periakulam,

¶13

Theni District.

¶14

3.The Tahsildar, Periakulam, Theni District.

¶15

4.Veerumallammal ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.12336/2021/D5, dated

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No17022 of 2022

¶20

9.6.2022 and quash the same as illegal.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian 1 to 3 Govt. Advocate

¶22

For Respondent-4 : Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent cancelling the UDR entry in the name of the Petitioner and restoration of patta in the name of fourth respondent’ s father and 7 others as it stood prior to UDR updation.

¶25

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶26

3.According to the Petitioner, 0.72.0 hectares of land situated in S.NO.1987/1B, Devadanapatti Bit-II Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District is the ancestral property of the Petitioner. The same was originally belong to one Kamatchi Chettiyar. The Petitioner claims right over the subject property under the second son of Kamatchi Chettiyar namely, Veeri Chettiyar. The fourth respondent herein claims right under the eldest son of Kamatchi

¶27

2/8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No17022 of 2022

¶30

Chettiyar namely Pa.Ka.Veeri Chettiar.

¶31

4.According to the Petitioner, after the death of Kamatchi Chettiyar, his legal representatives orally partitioned the immovable properties owned by him and the subject property in S.No.1987/1B fell to the share of the Petitioner’s father Subban Chettiyar. After the death of subban Chettiyar, the Petitioner got the subject property absolutely. Suppressing the said facts, the fourth respondent claiming herself as daughter of Veeri Chettiyar filed an application before the first respondent on 6.12.2021 as if entry in UDR records in favour of the Petitioner was an erroneous entry. The first respondent allowed the application filed by the fourth respondent and set side the UDR entry in favour of Petitioner and restored the revenue records in the name of eight persons including the name of the fourth respondent’s father Veeri Chettiyar, without any basis.

¶32

5.It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that when there is a serious dispute with regard to the title of the subject property, the first respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order and he should have relegated the parties to work out their remedy before the competent civil forum. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision in the case of Vishwas Footwear

¶33

3/8

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No17022 of 2022

¶36

reported in

¶37

Company Limited .vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in 2011(5)CTC 94.

¶38

6.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that Subban Chettiyar mentioned in the patta produced by the Petitioner, is not the father of the Petitioner, but he belonged to the other branch. He also submitted civil suit filed by Petitioner against fourth respondent was dismissed as not pressed.

¶39

7.A perusal of the old patta produced by the Petitioner in the additional typed-set of papers, dated 25.3.2025 would indicate that Patta No.87 which was issued in the year 1974 in respect of S.No.1987/1B stood in the name of eight persons including the Petitioner’s father Subban Chettiyar and the fourth respondent’s father Veeri Chettiyar. In the impugned order, the first respondent has stated that the petitioner failed to produce any document to show that how he got exclusive right over the subject property from the original pattadhars mentioned in the old patta. Therefore the entry made in the UDR records as if the subject property exclusively belonged to the Petitioner was found to be without proper documents. Hence the first respondent cancelled the UDR entry exclusively in the name of the Petitioner and restored the

¶40

4/8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No17022 of 2022

¶43

revenue records in the name of eight persons mentioned in the old records prior to UDR updation. Even in the patta produced by the Petitioner in the additional typed set of papers would indicate that prior to UDR updation, the revenue reocords stood in the name of eight persons including the father of the Petitioner and fourth respondent. The Petitioner has not produced any documents to substantiate the allegation in the affidavit that there was oral partition in the family and the subject property was exclusively allotted to the Petitioner’s father. Even assuming that there was oral partition, the revenue authorities cannot decide the validity of the same.

¶44

8.It Vishwas Footwear case , cited by the learned counsel for Petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court clearly held that revenue officials cannot decide the question of tile. In the case on hand, Patta No.87, dated 27.6.1974, produced by Petitioner in his Additional typed set, dated 25.3.2025 clearly establish patta for the subject property originally stood in the name of 8 persons including fourth respondent’s father Pa.Ka.Veeri Chettiar. The Petitioner claims, subject property was allotted to Petitioner’s father Subban Chettiar under oral partition. The same is denied by fourth respondent. The revenue officials cannot go into the question of validity of oral partition pleaded by the Petitioner. It is

¶45

5/8

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No17022 of 2022

¶48

also seen from typed set filed by fourth respondent that civil suit filed by Petitioner in O.S.No.12 of 2017, on the file of District Munsif, Periyakulam seeking injunction was dismissed as not pressed.

¶49

9.In such circumstances, the first respondent was justified in cancelling the UDR entry stood in the name of the Petitioner and restoration of the revenue records in the name of Veeri Chettiyar and 7 others, as it stood before the UDR updation. I find no error in the order passed by the first respondent.

¶50

10.For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the Petitioner to establish his alleged exclusive right over the subject property, by filing appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

19.06.2025

¶52

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

vsn

6/8

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

¶57