Disposed

Kumaravel v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Madras HC9 Dec 2025WP(MD)/7501/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order refusing patta for land in T.Murungapatti Village, claiming it was Natham land while revenue authorities classified it as Government land. The Court held the question involves a factual dispute over land classification unsuitable for writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner free to approach the Civil Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kumaravel Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

Kumaravel

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,

¶11

Chepauk,

¶12

Chennai.

¶13

2.The District Collector,

¶14

Trichy District, Trichy.

¶15

3.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶16

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶17

5.The Thasildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 in proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa6/53255/2024 of

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

¶23

the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in Old S.No.348/3 and New S.No.348/1A, situated at T.Murungapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District, to an extent of 970 sq. ft. in accordance with law, within the time limit as prescribed by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.V.G.Vallarasu Chezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 in proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa6/53255/2024 of the third respondent and, consequently, to direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in Old S.No.348/3 and New S.No.348/1A, situated at T.Murungapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District, measuring an extent of 970 sq. ft., in accordance with law, within the time limit as may be prescribed by this Court.

¶27

2 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

¶32

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the respondents claimed the petitioner's land to be Natham land. However, they subsequently changed their stand and contended that it is Government land. The petitioner has filed photographs of the playground and his residence. The learned counsel further submits that the primary issue to be decided is whether the land in question is Natham land or Government land.

¶33

4 . The petitioner sent a representation to the Tahsildar seeking issuance of a patta. The said representation was refused on the ground that the land in question was a playground and cart track. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order, which was dismissed upholding the finding that it was Government land. Subsequently, a revision was filed under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, which was also rejected.

¶34

5 . The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the land in question has been correctly classified as Government land based on the revenue records. It is further submitted that the petitioner's contentions regarding Natham land are speculative and not supported by revenue records. The

¶35

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

¶38

learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the petitioner has already availed of all available remedies under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, including the representation before the Tahsildar, the appeal, and the revision, all of which have been duly considered and rejected. Therefore, the impugned order of the third respondent does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

¶39

6 . Upon considering the submissions, this Court observes that the core issue raised by the petitioner, whether the land in question is Natham land or Government land, involves a question of fact and classification of land. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The proper forum to determine the category, classification, and nature of the land is the Civil Court, where evidence can be led and rival claims can be adjudicated.

¶40

7 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the Civil Court. No costs.

¶41

NCC : Yes / No ( K.SURENDER, J .) Index : Yes / No 09.12.2025 smn2

¶42

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

¶45

To:-

¶46

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶47

2.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶48

3.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶49

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶50

5.The Thasildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

¶54

K.SURENDER, J.

¶55

smn2

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2025

¶57

09.12.2025

¶58

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶59

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

Kumaravel v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kumaravel v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs The Tahsildar

Sittrarasu Vs The Tahsildar

Raman Vs The District Collector

Clarence Mary a Vs The Sub Collector

Chellathai v Vs The Tahsildar

Adhimuniyan Alies Adhimuni Vs The District Collector