IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
A. Ramakrishnan and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Collectorate, Kallakurichi District and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 35932 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.38812 of 2024
Decided On : 28-01-2025
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief :
“To issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 09-10-2024 made in D.Dis.B3 E-63095/2023, quash the same as illegal and further to direct the 2nd respondent to change the revenue records from the name of Sadapunar Training Institute to the names of the petitioners and their predecessors vendor to the properties situated in S.No.351/2A to an extent of 1.80 Acres in Chinnasalem South Village Account, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District and further to direct the 4th respondent to survey and sub divide the aforesaid land and to grant patta in the name of the petitioners and their successors based upon their respective title to the properties mentioned above.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the properties situate in Survey No.351/2 measuring an extent of 1.84 acres in Chinnasalem South Village Account,Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District belonged to one Ponngavanammal @ Sivabakkiammal. The said Sivabakkiammal had purchased the above mentioned property under a Sale Deed dated 25.02.1951 from one Muthusami and brothers, registered as Document No.360 of 1951. After the purchase, she had also got a patta in her name in Patta No.656 in respect of the said property. Thereafter, she had converted the property into house plots and sold it to various persons between 1965 and 1966.
3. The property in Survey No.351/2 had been subdivided as Survey No.351/2A measuring an extent of 1.80 acres and S.No.351/2B measuring an extent of 4 cents. The said Sivabakkiammal had sold 1.80 acres in S.No.351/2A to various persons and retained the 4 cents in S.No.351/2B for herself. The Revenue Divisional Officer 's order dated 21.09.1967 in A1/35136/66 would also indicate that the total extent of the property is 1 acre 84 cents. The patta in respect of S.No.351/2B measuring an extent of 4 cents stood in the name of Sivabakkiammal whereas the patta of other properties which had been sold to various persons was changed as Sadapunar Training Institute (Government Poromboke) on 21.06.1967, which appears to be a mistake on the part of the Government since the property in question was patta land and patta in respect of this extent also stood in the name of Sivabakkiammal. Thereafter on 14.09.1974, 19 of the owners who had purchased the lands, made a representation to the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the patta which stood in the name of the Government and issue patta in their names. The petitioner would submit that the Revenue Inspector had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the 4th respondent in which she has stated that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-title are in occupation and possession of the property and therefore, had recommended that the patta be changed in the name of the original owner, Sivabakkiammal.
4. The petitioners would further submit that prior to the UDR scheme, an extent of 4.96 cent in S.No.351/1 stood in the name of one Nataraja Iyer and 3 others. Subsequent to the purchase by Sivabakkiammal, she had got the revenue records mutated in her name to an extent of 1.84 acres. Since the revenue authorities had recommended that the patta be changed in the name of the petitioners and taking into account the possession of the property by the petitioners, the 4th respondent had passed an order dated 13.08.2021 recommending that the patta be changed in the name of Sivabakkiammal. Moreover, the 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 31.10.2022 had stated that there is no institute named “Sadapunar Training Institute” in the said property and directed the petitioners to obtain the orders from this Court in this regard. Despite these recommendations and the representations of the petitioners, the revenue authorities have not taken any steps to change the patta. Therefore, the petitioners had filed W.P.No.33983 of 2022 for a mandamus directing the 4th






Revenue authorities must rectify erroneous entries in land records and uphold rightful ownership based on possession and historical records.
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes and must direct parties to seek relief in civil court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.