Dismissed¶36

The District Collector, v. Pachaiyappas Trust Board

Madras HC9 Jun 2026/1392/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; Clause 15 Letters Patent; intra-court appeal; Madras High Court; patta/pattadhar mutation; revenue records rectification; writ of mandamus; Tenagudi Estate; Agani Village; Sirkali Taluk; Mayiladuthurai District; punja land; 206 acres; Pachaiyappa's Trust Board; Sri Sabanayagar Temple Chidambaram; Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga; erroneous suffix 'Dharga'; Settlement Tahsildar report dated 31.03.1968; W.P.No.36939 of 2024; order dated 18.12.2024; District Collector Mayiladuthurai; Revenue Divisional Officer Sirkali; Tahsildar Sirkali; G. Jayachandran J.; N. Mala J.; decided 09-06-2026; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving undisturbed the order dated 18.12.2024 made in W.P.No.36939 of 2024. ¶36

The District Collector, Vs Pachaiyappas Trust Board — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving undisturbed the order dated 18.12.2024 made in W.P.No.36939 of 2024.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal by the District Collector should succeed on his contention that the revenue records categorically show Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram as the landholders, so that no further mutation in favour of the Trust represented by Pachaiyappa's Trust Board was required. +2 more

¶27

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge, after proper appreciation of the records, had rightly passed the order directing the authorities to mutate the record as prayed in the writ petition.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The patta had been wrongly mutated in the name of 'Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga'; this Court held that the suffix 'Dharga' - not the question of who represents the Trust - is the issue in the case.

¶28

Key takeaways

As per the records, the Settlement Tahsildar as early as 1968 found on perusal of the records that the subject land belongs to Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram represented by Pachaiyappa's Trust Board - a record finding on which this Court relied in upholding the mutation order.ratio¶28
It was seen from the pleadings and the representation of learned counsel for the writ petitioner/1st respondent that rectification of records had already been carried out.ratio¶30
In view of the foregoing findings, nothing survived in the writ appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dr G. Jayachandran & N. Mala, JJ.; order by G. Jayachandran J.), 09-06-2026 - W.A.No.1392 of 2026 (intra-court appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent) by the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai, RDO Sirkali and Tahsildar Sirkali against the Single Judge's order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.No.36939 of 2024: About 206 acres of punja land (Tenagudi Estate, Agani Village, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District), whose patta stood in the name of Sri Sabanayagar Trustee, Pachaiyappa Mudaliar Dharma Paripalanam, had during settlement been erroneously mutated as 'Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga'. Upholding the Single Judge's direction (anchored on the Settlement Tahsildar's report dated 31.03.1968 identifying Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram represented by Pachaiyappa's Trust Board as pattadhar) to correct the entries, the Division Bench held that the erroneous suffix 'Dharga' - and not the question of who represents the Trust - was the sole issue; noting that rectification had already been carried out and nothing survived, it dismissed the appeal without costs.

¶1

W.P.No.1392 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶6

W.A.No.1392 of 2026

¶7

The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District Mayiladuthurai - 609 001.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sirkali Revenue Division, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶9

The Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluk, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶10

… Appellants Vs.

¶11

Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Pachaiyappa’s College Campus, Chennai -600 030.

¶12

… Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 made in W.P.No.36939 of 2024 and allow the above Writ Appeal.

¶14

For Appellants: Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, AAG., Assisted by Mr.B.Sivakollapan, GA

¶15

For Respondent: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

¶16

Page Nos.1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.1392 of 2026

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.)

¶21

About 206 acres of punja land in Agani Village, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District, the patta which stands in the name of Sri Sabanayagar Trustee, Pachaiyappa Mudaliar Dharma Paripalanam, Chennai, was by mistake

¶22

mutated in favour of Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga. The land commonly known and identified as Tenagudi Estate during the settlement process been erroneously mutated in the name of Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga, which has prompted the Pachaiyappa Trust Board to file W.P.No.36939 of 2024 seeking writ of mandamus to rectify the mistake in the revenue records and to restore the name of the petitioner, viz., Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board.

¶23

2. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the records, disposed of the writ petition by directing the authorities to correct the entries as per the report of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 31.03.1968, by incorporating the name of Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board, Madras, as pattadhars represented by Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram.

¶24

Page Nos.2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.1392 of 2026

¶27

3. The District Collector, who is the 1^st respondent in the writ petition has preferred an intra-court appeal contending that the revenue records categorically show the name of the landholders as Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram. Therefore, according to him, the patta already in the name of the Temple does not require any further mutation in favour of Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram represented by Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board.

¶28

4. Though the above submission superficially appears to be correct but on examination of the records shows that the patta been wrongly mutated in the name of Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga, and the suffix “Dharga” is the issue in this case and not who represents the Trust. The Settlement Tahsildar, as early as 1968, on perusal of the records, found that the subject land belongs to Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram represented by Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board. While so, the learned Single Judge, after proper appreciation of the records has passed the order directing the authorities to mutate the record as prayed in the writ petition.

¶29

5. Moreover, it is seen from the pleadings and the representation made by

¶30

the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/1^st respondent that rectification of records has already been carried out.

¶31

Page Nos.3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.1392 of 2026

¶34

¶35