K.Alagusundaram Vs The District Collector

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to cancel the patta in favor of the 5th respondent issued by the 4th respondent in his proceedings T.R.2024/0103/24/31356TR dated 26.03.2024 and subsequent proceedings TR2025/0103/24/413799TR dated 19.08.2025 in favor of 6 to 8th respondent is to be set aside as illegal and restore its original Position by consider petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2025.

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Venkatesan For Respondents :Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr.M.Prakash for R6 to R8 R5 – notice refused

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to cancel the patta granted in favour of the fifth respondent by the fourth respondent in proceedings T.R.2024/0103/24/31356TR dated 26.03.2024 and the subsequent proceedings T.R.2025/0103/24/413799TR dated 19.08.2025 issued in favour of respondents 6 to 8 and to set aside the same as illegal and further to restore the original position by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 20.03.2025.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.25282 of 2025

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶25

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner inherited the aforesaid property from his father and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till date. The petitioner alleges that, suppressing the petitioner’s Kudivaram rights over the land, one Baskaran fraudulently executed a general power of attorney in respect of the said land as though it were his self-acquired property. The main grievance of the petitioner is that Baskaran, by creating forged documents, managed to have the patta transferred in his name and subsequently mutated the patta in favour of respondents 6 to 8. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.03.2025 to the first and second respondents seeking cancellation of the patta. However, no action has been taken on the said representation. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.25282 of 2025

¶30

Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8 submitted that

¶32

two civil suits relating to the subject property have already been decided and that the petitioner, suppressing these facts, has filed the present writ petition.

¶33

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had earlier filed O.S. No.1 of 2008 and subsequently an appeal, and both proceedings were decided against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has submitted a representation seeking cancellation of the patta for the aforesaid property.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the representation is pending before the revenue authorities, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after taking note of the civil suits which have already been decided by the civil

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.25282 of 2025

¶38

court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A speaking order shall be passed after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to all other persons who may be affected by such decision. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

(K.SURENDER, J) 04.12.2025

¶40

NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN

¶41

To

¶42