Dismissed¶41

P.Radhakrishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC24 Sept 2025WP(MD)/26574/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: poramboku kalam; sarkar poromboke; Arasu Poromboke Kulam; ryotwari punja; UDR (Upadated Records) period; settlement 'A' Register; patta cancellation; S.No.385/5 and S.No.385/6; Salaigramam; Ilayangudi Taluk; Sivagangai District; District Revenue Officer; Tahsildar; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.26574 of 2025; decided 24.09.2025 by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, and the connected writ miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD)No.20610 of 2025) was closed; the impugned order of the District Revenue Officer stands. ¶41

P.Radhakrishnan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 24.09.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.26574 of 2025 and

¶6

W.M.P(MD)No.20610 of 2025

P.Radhakrishnan

...Petitioner

The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Sivagangai District.

¶11

The District Revenue Officer,

¶12

Office of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶14

Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶16

Kuppammal

¶17

J.Amutha

¶18

Chellam

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Impugned order in Na.Ka.No.C2/29791/2024 dated 19.06.2025 of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and restore the revenue records or the S.No.385/5, Salaigramam, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as Government

¶21

1/5

¶22

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

¶23

Poramboku Kalam.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vasantha Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner had requested the District Revenue Officer to cancel the patta in relation to S.No.385/5 and restore the revenue records as Government poramboku kalam. The said request was rejected by the order impugned herein.

¶27

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the said order refers to the settlement 'A' Register while concluding that S.No.385/5 is a ryotwari punja land. By referring to SLR at page No.26 of the typed set, he submits that the said document records that the land in S.No.385/5 was also sarkar poromboke.

¶28

3.Learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. By placing on record the SLR record and the UDR records, he submits that S.No.385/5 was classified as ryotwari punja land even in the pre-UDR period. He also invited my attention to the operative paragraphs of the impugned order in this regard.

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

4.In the impugned order, the settlement 'A' Register records were noticed

¶32

as under:-

¶33

“nrd;by;nkz;l; m gjpNtl;bYk;> ” ” As per K.L.P. ASO's Roc. 14977 , A 4( j ) dt .21.11.64-d; gb Gy vz;:385 / 5 gug;G 0.14.0 Vh;];> 0.34 nrd;l; jPh;it 0.28 igrh uaj;J Gd;nra; gl;lh vz;:1826.K.Rg;igah(1)>Re;jughz;bad;(2 ), rpjk;guk;gps;is(3)> MWKfk;gps;is(4) vd jpUj;jk; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sijAk; mwpa KbfpwJ. ”

¶34

5.Thereafter, in the operative paragraphs of the order, it is recorded as

¶35

under:-

¶36

“,isahd;Fb tl;lk;> rhiyfpuhkk; F&g;> Gy vz;: 385 / 6 gug;G 0.05.5 Vu;]; ehsJ NjjptiuapYk; muR Gd;nra; fsk; vd;Nw fpuhkf;fzf;fpy; jhf;fyhfpAs;sJ. Nkw;fhZk; Gyk;> kahdkhf nghJkf;fshy; gad;gLj;jg;gLfpwJ.

¶37

Gy vz;: 385 / 5 gug;G 0>14.0 Vu;]; (0.34 nrd;l;) epyk; epycilikg;gjpT Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l fhyj;jpw;F Kd;ghfNt nrl;by;nkz;l; fzf;Ffspy; gl;lh epykhf jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. mjdbg;gilapy; epycilikg;gjpT Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l fzf;FfspYk; gl;lh epykhf jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. gpd;G ej;jk; epytupj;jpl;lj;jpw;F vLj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gl;L ej;jkhf jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. MfNt Gy vz;: 385 / 5 gug;G 0.14.0 Vu;]; epyk; epycilikg;gjpT Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lj;jpy; gl;lh epykhf jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;ljpYk;> mjidj;njhlu;e;J ej;jkhf khw;wg;gl;ljpYk; vt;tpj tpjpkPwy;fSk; epfotpy;iy vd;gJ cWjpnra;ag;gLtjhy;> kDjhuupd; Nfhupf;ifapid js;Sgb nra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶38

3/5

¶39

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

¶40

6.On examining the above findings, it is evident that the District Revenue Officer concluded that the land in S.No.385/6 was recorded as Arasu Poromboke Kulam, whereas the land in S.No.385/5 was recorded as a patta land even in the pre-UDR period. Consequently, the District Revenue Officer reached the conclusion that no error was committed while drawing up records during the UDR period. I find no infirmity in such conclusion warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

7.For reasons therefor, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as

¶42

to costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶43

24.09.2025

¶44

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶45

4/5

¶46

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

¶47

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶48

RJR

¶49

¶50

The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Sivagangai District.

¶51

The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶52