The court affirmed the validity of original ownership based on proper documentation and locus standi.

O R D E R

The petitioner assails both the order dated 13.02.2024 of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the consequential order dated 05.08.2025 of the District Revenue Officer rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth respondent herein had made a complaint in respect of granting of a false patta and that he did not seek cancellation of the patta issued to the petitioner earlier. The second contention is that the fourth respondent did not establish his entitlement to the relevant property and, consequently, lacks locus standi to file the appeal. He also submits that the petition filed by the fourth respondent was not served on the petitioner.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. By referring to the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, learned Special Government Pleader points out that it is recorded therein that Selvem had requested for the cancellation of the patta issued to the petitioner herein. By referring to the operative paragraph of the order, learned Special Government Pleader points out that it was noticed therein that the original pattadar was Sridharan. It was also noticed and recorded that the encumbrance certificate for the period 1982 to 2022 does not reflect any conveyance by Sridharan to Anbazhagan. In these circumstances, learned Special Government Pleader submits that the petitioner should have obtained a document from Sridharan declaring that he has no rights or title over the relevant property. Without the same, he submits that the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer cannot be faulted.

4. Both the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer contain a discussion of the statement made by the parties and the documents submitted by them. After examining the 'A' Register of the UDR period, Natham Chitta Register, Encumbrance certificate, etc, it was concluded that the revenue records stood in the name of Sridharan. It was further recorded that the encumbrance certificate does not disclose any conveyance by Sridharan to the petitioner.

5. While learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fourth respondent does not have locus standi to file the appeal, the said contention cannot be countenanced in view of the assertion by the fourth respondent that he resides in the relevant property. In addition, upon information being provided to the Revenue Divisional Officer that a patta was wrongly issued to a person not entitled thereto, upon examining relevant records, the Revenue Divisional Officer concluded that the said information is correct and, therefore, directed remedial measures to be taken by restoring the patta in the name of the original pattadar, Sridharan. I find no infirmity in the concurrent orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer to the said effect.

6. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs by leaving it open to the petitioner to approach Sridharan for an appropriate document to support the petitioner's title to the property. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

NCS : Yes/No 29.10.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The District Revenue Officer, / Additional District Executive Magistrate, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

3. The Tahsildar, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 30484 of 2025