M.Abdul Rahim Vs The District Collector

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1548857/2023/A6 dated 25.07.2025, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2^nd to 4^th respondent to grant patta in petitioner name for the lands in Natham Survey Nos.663/5 , measuring 0.02.84 hectares, Survey No.663/8, measuring 0.02.86

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

hectares, Survey No.668/27, measuring 0.01.06 hectares, and survey No. 655/29, measuring 0.00.95 hectares in Idayakottai Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, within a time stipulated by this court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Amaravel Pandiyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner assails an order of the District Revenue Officer declining the petitioner's request for patta.

¶21

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the communication from the Tahsildar recognising the petitioner's ownership of the relevant lands. Based on sale deed submitted by the petitioner, he further submits that the petitioner cannot be denied patta solely on the ground that there are discrepancies between the boundaries and extents indicated in the parent documents when compared with the boundaries and extents indicated in the current revenue records and extents physically available at site.

¶22

3.Learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. By placing on record circular dated 07.08.2015 of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, he points out that the

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

present case falls within category(II) therein and that if there are discrepancies in extents, patta cannot be issued.

¶26

4.On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner's request has been rejected on the basis that there are discrepancies between the boundaries mentioned in the parent documents when compared with the current revenue records and the physical extent available at site. It is also noticeable that the petitioner was permitted to challenge the order before the Commissioner of Land Administration within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶27

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has approached this court instead of approaching the Commissioner of Land Administration on account of the advanced age of the petitioner.

¶28

6.Upon considering all of the aforesaid, the Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005, is suo motu impleaded as the 5^th respondent in this writ petition. This order shall be issued after carrying out the amendment in the petition.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

7.This writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Land Administration. The petitioner shall file an appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the Commissioner of Land Administration is directed to issue orders on merits within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶32

13.10.2025

¶33

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

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

To

¶37