Dismissed¶43

Saraswathi v. The Additional Collector (Revenue)

Madras HC22 Sept 2025WP(MD)/19655/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed - Madurai Bench, Madras High Court - mutation of revenue records, Survey Nos. 343/2 and 344/3, Vallam Pudur village, Thanjavur - Additional Collector (Revenue) order dated 07.07.2023 upheld - petitioner Saraswathi failed to produce registered documents before authority - sale deed dated 20.01.1932 not produced and confined to Survey No.344/3 - no infirmity found, interference declined - liberty reserved to approach civil court - Article 226, certiorarified mandamus.

What did the court decide?

The sale deed dated 20.01.1932 was not produced before the first respondent, and on perusal it pertains only to the land in survey No.344/3 and does not appear to extend to the land in survey No.343/2. ¶42

Saraswathi Vs The Additional Collector (Revenue) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No. 19655 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No. 19655 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16232 of 2023

Saraswathi

... Petitioner

The Additional Collector (Revenue), Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Thanjavur Taluk Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶13

Vijayakumar ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.25706/2021/U(2) dated 07.07.2023 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to not interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.343/2 to an

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No. 19655 of 2023

¶18

extent of 0.43.5 Ares and Survey No.344/3 to an extent of 0.36.0 Ares situated at Vallam Pudur village, Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. G.Gomathisankar

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.P.Vadivel for R4

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner asserts that she is the daughter of Singaram Udaiyar and that Singaram Udaiyar was the son-in-law of Veerappa Udaiyar who has purchased the property in survey No.343/2 of an extent of 43.5 ares and survey No.344/3 of an extent of 36 ares. The petitioner further states that the revenue records were mutated in the name of her father, Singaram Udaiyar and upon his demise, in the name of the petitioner.

¶23

In these circumstances, the petitioner submits further that the revenue records were erroneously directed to be mutated in the name of the fourth respondent by the order impugned herein.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No. 19655 of 2023

¶28

documents standing in the name of Singaram Udaiyar and patta No.484 in the name of Saraswati. By referring to the impugned order, he points out that these documents were noticed by the first respondent, but the first respondent proceeded to erroneously conclude that the petitioner had failed to submit any documents to establish her rights in respect of the relevant property.

¶29

In response, learned counsel for the fourth respondent points out that the sale deed dated 20.01.1932 was not submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent. In any event, he submits that the said document is in favour of the petitioner's maternal grandfather and deals only with land in survey No.344/3. By contrast, he submits that the petitioner had placed on record documents tracing title from 1973. Therefore, he contends that interference with the impugned order is not called for.

¶30

In the impugned order, in relevant part, it is recorded as under:

¶31

“vjpu;kDjhuu; ru];tjpahy; jhtu; Gy vz;fs; njhlu;ghf gjpTg;ngw;w Mtzq;fs; VJk; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gltpy;iy. jhth Gy vz;fs; cupik

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No. 19655 of 2023

¶35

njhlu;ghd gjpTg;ngw;w Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; mDgtk; vDjhuu; trk; cs;sJk; tprhuiz thapyhf njupa tUfpwJ. NkYk; jtht Gy vz;fspd; mUfhikapy; cs;s muR Gwk;Nghf;F epyj;jpid vjpu;kDjhuu; tptrhak; nra;J vjpu;kDjhuupy; ngau; jtWjyhf jpy; cilik jpl;l gjpTfspy; gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ njupa tUfpwJ.

¶36

jhth Gy vz;fs; njhlu;ghf Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l fpiua Mtz Mtz vz; 628/1973 kw;Wk; 1838/1973 kw;Wk; mjid njhlu;e;J Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l fpiua Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; mDgtj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; jhth Gyq;fs; kPJ vjpu;kDjhuu; (M[u; gl;lhjhuu;) ru];tjp vd;gtUf;F vt;tpj cupikAk; ,y;iy vd njupa tUtjhy; tUtha; Nfhl;l mYtyu; mwpf;if fpuhkf;fzf;Ffs;> gjpTg;ngw;w fpiua

¶37

Mthuq;fs; ,ju Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; tprhuizapd; mbg;gilapy; jQ;rhT+u; tl;lk; ty;yk; GJ}u; fpuhkk;> Gy vz;343/2 kw;Wk; 344/3 epy cilik gjpTfspy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s M[u; gl;lhjhupd; ngaupid ePf;fp fpiua Mtz vz; 473/1996-,d; mbg;gilapy; jhth Gyq;fis fpiuak; ngw;w jpUkjp rPjhnyl;Rkp vd;gtu; ngaupy; jhf;fy; nra;jplTk; mjid njhlu;e;J Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l gjpTg;ngw;w fpiua Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy; gl;lh khw;wk; nra;jplTk; jQ;rhT+u; tl;lhl;rpaUf;F ,jd; %yk;

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No. 19655 of 2023

¶41

Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.”

¶42

It is noticeable from the above extracts that the first respondent recorded that the petitioner/Saraswathi did not submit any registered documents relating to the relevant survey numbers. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that the sale deed dated 20.01.1932 was not produced before the first respondent. On perusal of the sale deed dated 20.01.1932, it appears to pertain only to the land in survey No.344/3 and does not appear to extend to the land in survey No.343/2. In these circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order impugned herein. Consequently, I decline to interfere.

¶43

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. This order will not, however, come in the way of the petitioner approaching the jurisdictional civil court for relief.

¶44

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd 5/7

¶45

22.09.2025

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No. 19655 of 2023

¶48

¶49