P. Rangarajan Vs The District Collector

Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the second respondent confirming the order dated 19.05.2021 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 4 to correct the mistaken Patta No.464 by removing the excess area of measurement and issue only for 1131 sq.ft alone as per the sale deed of fifth respondent.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader (*)For R5 : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner herein filed an application before the third respondent seeking cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent, in respect of the property situated in New Survey No.524/19, Old survey No.524/1, Veerani Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.1824 of 2025

¶25

2.Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶26

3.According to the petitioner, the revenue officials have granted patta in favour of the fifth respondent more than the extent purchased by him. It is not in dispute that in respect of the very same subject property, the fifth respondent herein has filed a suit for declaration of title and for injunction against the petitioner herein in O.S.No.154 of 2020, on the file of Sub Court , Lalgudi and the same is pending. The petitioner, on his part, has filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 2022, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, in respect of the very same subject property, seeking mandatory injunction directing the fifth respondent to remove the unlawful construction put up by him in the subject property. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has admitted the possession of the fifth respondent over the subject property and as far as the title is concerned, the dispute is pending before the Civil Court. In such circumstances, the respondents 3 and 4 are justified in directing the parties to workout their remedies before the Civil Court, as they cannot take a call on the question of title.

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.1824 of 2025

¶30

4.In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with

¶31

the impugned order passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶32

(*)Amended as per Order of this Court dated 24.07.2025