Dismissed¶32

R.Rathinam v. N.Saraswathi

Madras HC26 Feb 2026WPMP Crl./18/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WPMP Crl. No. 18 of 2026 in W.P.No.18228 of 2025; review petition under Article 226; order dated 24.09.2025; title determination by civil Court versus Revenue Authorities; mutation of revenue records; Survey Nos. 160/1 and 160/1B; O.S.No.48 of 2025, District Munsif Court, Tiruthani; Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer; Tahsildhar Tiruthani Taluk; Inspector of Police, D3-Kanakamma Chatram Station; Tiruvallur District; R.Rathinam v. N.Saraswathi and others; petition dismissed; liberty to approach civil Court; no costs.

What did the court decide?

This Court is of the view that only the civil Court can decide the title of the parties; the Revenue Authorities cannot decide the title; and only based on the decision of the Civil Court can the revenue records be mutated. ¶28

R.Rathinam Vs N.Saraswathi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WPMP Crl. No. 18 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WPMP Crl. No. 18 of 2026 in W.P.No.18228 of 2025

R.Rathinam

..Petitioner(s)

N.Saraswathi

¶11

R.Balasubramanian

¶12

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-CumRevenue Divisional Officer, Tiruthani, Tiruvallur District.

¶13

The Tahsildhar Tiruthani Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, D3-Kanakamma Chatram Station, Tiruthani Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order passed in W.P.No.18228 of 2025 dated 24.09.2025.

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.Baskaran for C.H.Parajothi For Respondent(s): : Mr.C.Vigneswaran for R1 and R2 Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor R3 to R5

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WPMP Crl. No. 18 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the fourth respondent

¶23

in the writ petition, to review the order passed in W.P.No.18228 of 2025 dated 24.09.2025.

¶24

The review of the order has been sought on the ground that dismissal

¶25

of the suit by the civil Court relate to some other property, whereas it is has been represented by the other side as if the suit has been decided in respect of the subject Survey Number i.e., S.No.160/1. Hence, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the observation in this regard in the order dated 24.09.2025 has to be removed.

¶26

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that another suit in O.S.No.48 of 2025 has already been filed before the District Munsif Court,

¶27

Tiruthani in respect of S.Nos.160/1 and 160/1B.

¶28

Therefore, this Court is of the view that only the civil Court can decide the title of the parties and the Revenue Authorities cannot decide the title and only based on the decision of the Civil Court, the revenue records can be mutated.

¶29

__________ Page2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

WPMP Crl. No. 18 of 2026

¶32

In such view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner

¶33

shall workout his remedy before the civil Court. There shall be no order as to

¶34

costs.