K.Rajendran Vs The District Collector

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2023 filed as against the illegal mutation of the Patta Nos.2252 and 2253 issued for the land located in Survey No.49/2, dry land, belonging to Neivasal Village, Neivasal Panchayat, Thirumayam Panchayat Union Section, Thirumayam Sub-District, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, and cancel the same, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Madhubalan M For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2023 filed as against the illegal mutation of the Patta Nos.2252 and 2253 issued for the land located in Survey No. 49/2, dry land, belonging to Neivasal Village, Neivasal Panchayat, Thirumayam Panchayat Union Section, Thirumayam Sub-District, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, and cancel the same, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.9102 of 2026

¶26

The contention of the petitioner is that the property is an ancestral

¶27

property. Originally, it belonged to the petitioner's grandfather, namely, Periyakaruppan S/o. of Raman and patta No.421 was issued in his name. Subsequently, the patta was converted into a joint patta in the names of his legal heirs, namely Karuppaiya, Dhanushkodi, Kasi and Subbiah, who were in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the demise of the petitioner’s grandfather, the said legal heirs continued to jointly enjoy the property. The petitioner is the son of Karuppaiya, the eldest son of Periyakaruppan. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father Karuppaiya and his brother Dhanushkodi died and the petitioner, along with the surviving legal heirs, namely Kasi and Subbiah, continued in joint possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶28

While so, the petitioner recently came to know that his paternal uncle, Subbiah, had allegedly misused his political influence and fraudulently altered the revenue records and patta was issued in Patta No.2252 by removing the names of the co-owners. Subsequently, on 16.07.2021, the said Subbiah is stated to have executed a fraudulent gift deed in favour of his daughter, Jothi, and on the same day, the patta was transferred in her name, resulting in issuance of Patta No. 2253. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent seeking cancellation of the said pattas.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.9102 of 2026

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that

¶33

the petitioner ought to prefer an appeal before the second respondent, as the patta has already been mutated in the name of the said Jothi. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal, the second respondent shall consider the same and conduct an enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner, as well as to the said Subbiah, Jothi, and any other rival claimants, if any, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks therefrom. If the second respondent comes to the conclusion that the matter involves a dispute relating to title, he is at liberty to direct the parties to approach the competent Civil Court.

¶34

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

¶35

06.04.2026

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

¶37

jbr

¶38

4/6

¶39

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