Disposed

N.Chinnappa v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Dec 2025WP(MD)/35408/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged a bogus patta mutation in Patta No.1590 favouring respondents 5 and 6's family without hearing him and sought a direction to conclude the pending enquiry. The court, without expressing any opinion on merits, disposed of the petition directing official respondents to complete the enquiry within twelve weeks after hearing all affected parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1-4 to conclude the patta mutation enquiry and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks after hearing all affected parties; liberty to approach Civil Court for rival claims.

N.Chinnappa Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶7

N.Chinnappa ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirengam Revenue Division, Trichy District.

¶12

4.The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶13

5.Jegan Mohanraj

¶14

6.Mohanraj ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conclude the enquiry to cancel the bogus patta mutation in Patta No.1590 in the name of the 5^th

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

and 6 th

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶20

and 6^th respondents' family and to restore the same in the petitioner's name based on the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2025, within a stipulated time in accordance with law.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian Government Advocate For R5 : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conclude the enquiry for cancellation of the alleged bogus patta mutation in Patta No.1590 standing in the name of the family of the respondents 5 and 6, and to restore the patta in the petitioner's name based on his representation dated 12.11.2025, within a stipulated time, in accordance with law.

¶24

2 . With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶29

3 . Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the sixth respondent, notice to the sixth respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶30

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bogus patta mutation has been created in Patta No.1590 in favour of the family of the respondents 5 and 6, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2025, the authorities have not initiated or concluded the enquiry to rectify the unlawful mutation. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the official respondents to conclude the enquiry and restore the patta in his name within a time-bound manner.

¶31

5 . The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the mutation in question was effected after following due procedure and denies the allegation of bogus entry. It is further contended that the fifth respondent's family has longstanding possession over the property, and therefore, any enquiry must be conducted strictly in accordance with law after granting due opportunity to all parties concerned.

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶36

6 . The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submits that the authorities are prepared to conduct a detailed enquiry into the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits. It is further submitted that the official respondents require 12 weeks' time to complete the enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to all the stakeholders.

¶37

7 . Recording the aforesaid submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to conclude the enquiry regarding wrongful mutation of Patta and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity during such enquiry to the petitioner, the respondents 5 and 6 and also to the others who may be affected by such decision, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of any rival claims, the parties are at liberty to work out their remedies before the Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

NCC : Yes / No ( K.SURENDER, J .) Index : Yes / No 11.12.2025

¶39

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶42

To:-

¶43

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶44

2.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶45

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirengam Revenue Division, Trichy District.

¶46

4.The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶50

K.SURENDER, J.

¶51

smn2

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.35408 of 2025

¶53

11.12.2025

¶54

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶55

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

N.Chinnappa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Chinnappa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavithran Vs The Tahsildar

M.Murugavalli Vs The District Collector

Selvi M.Joice Vs The Government of India

A.Malaichamy Vs The District Collector

Alangaram Vs The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar

R.Natcharammal Vs The Union of India Represented by Deputy Secretary (Ina)