Sathaiah Vs The District Revenue Officer

dispose of the petitioner’s statutory revision petition dated 14.12.2025 in E.4060341/2025/45 within such time frame as may be fixed by this Court and consequently restraining the respondents, their men, agents or anyone acting under them from taking any coercive steps or attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the land situated in S.Nos.260/3D and 260/3D1A1 at Mookgudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, pending disposal of the said revision petition.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayendiran

¶24

For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s statutory revision petition dated 14.12.2025 in E.4060341/2025/45 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and consequently restraining the respondents, their men, agents or anyone acting under them from taking any coercive steps or dispossessing the petitioner from the land situated in S.Nos.260/3D and 260/3D1A1 at Mookgudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, pending disposal of the said revision petition.

¶28

____________ Page No. 2 of 7_

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.4887 of 2026

¶31

With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for

¶32

final disposal at the admission stage itself, dispensing with the notice to the fifth respondent, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against him.

¶33

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property in Survey No. 260/3D, measuring an extent of 0.47.5 ares, situated at Mookudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, originally belonged to the petitioner’s grandfather. There are several legal heirs. However, one of the legal heirs, suppressing the existence of the other legal heirs, fraudulently executed a Power of Attorney, based on which several sale deeds were executed and pattas were also issued. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent seeking cancellation of the patta.

¶34

4. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2024 before the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, seeking a declaration that the Power of Attorney and the sale deeds are null and void, which is still pending. However, the second respondent, by order dated 27.10.2025, rejected the petitioner’s request for cancellation of the patta. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the first

¶35

____________ Page No. 3 of 7_

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.4887 of 2026

¶38

respondent on 14.12.2025 and the same was taken on file in E. 4060341/2025/45.

¶39

5. In the meantime, the second to fourth respondents visited the petitioner’s property on 16.02.2026 and informed that the petitioner’s hut is situated in S.No.260/3D1A1, which is classified as a public pathway and directed the petitioner to remove the hut immediately, despite being aware of the civil suit pending before the competent civil court and the revision pending before the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

¶40

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first to fourth respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's revision would be disposed of by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks.

¶41

7. Recording the above submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to conclude the enquiry on the petitioner's revision in E.4060341/2025/45 and pass appropriate orders on its merits

¶42

____________ Page No. 4 of 7_

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.4887 of 2026

¶45

and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date

¶46

of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is also directed to

¶47

provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the fifth respondent and any other interested parties who may be affected by such decision, before passing any order. Since, according to the petitioner, the government officials are attempting to evict the petitioner from the premises during the pendency of the revision before the first respondent, it is needless to state that until the proceedings are concluded before the first respondent, the parties shall maintain status quo as on date. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

[K.SURENDER, J.] 20.02.2026

¶49

JEN Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶50

To

¶51