Disposed¶22

Muthuveerappan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC11 Mar 2026WP(MD)/6603/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UDR record correction; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; District Revenue Officer Sivagangai; Tahsildar Karaikudi; Velangudi Village Survey No.87; 3 acres 48 cents (1.41.00 Hectares); settlement deed 31.05.1956 Doc.No.645 of 1956; Subbiah Pillai; Sundara Moorthy; Manchai Village erroneous mention; Deivanai Aachi wrongly entered in UDR updation; enquiry with notice to petitioner and third respondent; twelve-week timeline; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; S. Srimathy; 11-03-2026; WP(MD) No. 6603 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent (DRO) to conduct an enquiry after notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within twelve weeks; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶22

Muthuveerappan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (District Revenue Officer) is the appropriate authority to hear and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.02.2026 seeking correction of the erroneous UDR entry for Survey No.87 (3 acres 48 cents) in Velangudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶12

Court's answer

The first respondent DRO is the appropriate authority; it shall conduct an enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and the third respondent, and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), S. Srimathy J., 11-03-2026, WP(MD) No. 6603 of 2026: Writ petition under Article 226 by Muthuveerappan seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District (Karaikudi) to hear and dispose of his representation dated 23.02.2026 seeking correction of an erroneous UDR entry recording third respondent Deivanai Aachi for Survey No.87, 3 acres 48 cents (1.41.00 Hectares), Velangudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk. The property was purchased by the petitioner's grandfather Subbiah Pillai and settled by deed dated 31.05.1956 (Doc.No.645 of 1956, Joint II Sub Registrar, Karaikudi) in favour of minor Sundara Moorthy, the petitioner's brother; the village was erroneously recorded as 'Manchai Village' in the 1956 document. The petitioner contended that the third respondent's name was wrongly entered during UDR updation without any sale deed, gift deed or other transfer document. Held: the DRO is the appropriate authority and shall conduct an enquiry after notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within twelve weeks. Petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11-03-2026 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶3

WP(MD) NO. 6603 of 2026

Muthuveerappan

Petitioner(s)

The District Revenue Officer Sivagangai District Karaikudi.

¶8

The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office Karaikudi Taluk Sivangagai District.

¶9

Deivanai Aachi

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S. Vashik Ali For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Prayer:

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to hear and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.02.2026 (Received on 24.02.2026) seeking correction of erroneous entry in UDR records with respect to the property bearing Survey No.87 to an extent of 3 acres 48 cents (1.41.00 Hectares) in Velangudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the

¶15

1st respondent herein to hear and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.02.2026 (Received on 24.02.2026) seeking correction of erroneous entry in UDR records with respect

¶16

to the property bearing Survey No.87 to an extent of 3 acres 48 cents (1.41.00 Hectares) in

¶17

Velangudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

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

¶19

2.The brief facts are that originally, the property belonged to the petitioner's grandfather Subbiah Pillai who purchased the property and was in absolute possession by mutating all revenue records in his favour. The said Subbiah Pillai executed a settlement deed, dated 31.05.1956, which includes the subject property and other properties in favour of his brother's son minor Sundara Moorthy who is the petitioner's brother, vide Doc.No.645 of 1956 on the file of the Joint II Sub Registrar, Karaikudi. The four boundaries mentioned in the document confirms that the land is within Velangudi Village limits. Though the property lies in Velangudi Village, it was erroneously mentioned as "Manchai Village" in 1956 document. The petitioner is claiming rights over the property based on the settlement deed, dated 31.05.1956, in Doc.No.645 of 1956.

¶20

3.The contention of the petitioner is that in the UDR updation, the third respondent's name was wrongly entered. There is no sale deed or gift deed or transfer of property or any document executed in favour of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking to correct the entry.

¶21

4.The first respondent DRO is the appropriate authority. Therefore, the first respondent shall conduct an enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and the third respondent, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance to law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to

¶23

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

costs.

11-03-2026

Tmg