IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-12-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE V. Kabirdass Reddy, S/o. Veeraragava Reddy, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Aminjikarai Village, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu District, 4. The Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, 5. S. Santhi, W/o. Late Suntharavaratha Reddy, Bajanai Koil Street, Aminjikarai Village, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Chengalpattu District-603 109

6. V. Karthikeyan, S/o. Late Suntharavaratha Reddy, Bajanai Koil Street, Aminjikarai Village, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Chengalpattu District-603 109 ..Respondent(s)

calling for the records pertaining to Joint Patta No.169 issued by the 4th Respondent mutating the name of Late Sundharavaradhan, in respect of property measuring to an extent of 1.33 cents in S.No.239/2, New Survey No.239/2C situate at Aminjikarai Village, Thirukalukundram, Chengalpattu Sub-Registration District, Kancheepuram, and calling for the records of impugned proceedings issued by 4th Respondent in Na.Ka. No.292/2024/A2 dated 21.12.2024 quash the same and further issue direction to the 4th Respondent to restore the patta in the individual Name of the Writ Petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Ms. KEERTHANA R SHENOI For Respondent(s): Mr.C.. JAYAPRAKASH GOVT ADVOCATE R1 to R4 ORDER This writ petition has been challenging the impugned order dated

21.12.2024 passed by the fourth respondent (Tahsildar) rejecting the petitioner’s request for cancellation of patta standing in the name of Sundharavardhan. The respondents 5 and 6 are the legal heirs of Late Sundharavardhan.

2. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, the learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, and submits that the petitioner ought to have filed an application seeking for cancellation of patta before the third respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer), but, instead, he has erroneously applied for cancellation of patta before the fourth respondent (Tahsildar).

3. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 5 and 6, notice to them in this writ petition is dispensed with.

4. The power to cancel patta is vested only with the Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent herein. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to direct the petitioner to file an application before the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer seeking for cancellation of patta standing in the name of Sundaravardhan, who is no more, and is now represented by his legal heirs, namely, respondents 5 and 6. Since the third respondent is the competent authority for cancellation of patta, necessarily, the petitioner will have to approach only the third respondent, but, by mistake, he has approached the fourth respondent, who has passed the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, is also willing to submit a fresh application to the third respondent seeking for cancellation of patta, now standing in the name of Sundaravardhan and the petitioner, and for issuance of separate patta in favour of the petitioner, provided this Court directs the third respondent to dispose of the said application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, by adhering to the principles of natural justice. No prejudice will be caused if such a direction is issued to the third respondent.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

(a) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application to the third respondent seeking for cancellation of patta for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, which is now standing in the joint names of the petitioner, as well as Sundaravardhan, who is no more, and is now represented by the respondents 5 and 6, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) On