2025:MHC:2818 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :26.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 and WMP (MD) Nos.5763 and 5765 of 2025 Robert Rubin Raj ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Revenue Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

3. The Revenue Inspector, Mathur Subdivision, Pudukkottai District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Lakshmanan Patti Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

5. A. Singa Muthu ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1 st respondent/ the Pudukkottai District Revenue Officer in Ni.Mu.D3/2109227/2024 dated 07.02.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to retain the revenue records including Patta in respect of Sy.No. 105/1B and 105/1C (admeasuring 10 Acre 29 cents), Lakshmanan Patti Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District in the name of the writ petitioner in Patta No.1367.

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Dilipkumar For Respondents :Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr. B. Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Mr. C.Gangaiamaran for R5

O R D E R

The petitioner asserts that he purchased 3.25 hectares (8.02 acres)

of land in Survey No.105/1B and 0.92 hectares (2 acres and 27 cents) in Survey No.105/1C from Mahesh Kumar and Tmt.Vasantha under a sale deed dated 14.07.2008, registered as Document No.3837 of 2008. Pursuant thereto, it is stated that Patta No.1367 was issued in the name of the petitioner. Because an adverse claim was made by T.P. Abdul Bashir and T.C. Harris in respect of 2 acres on the northern portion of the petitioner’s land in Survey No.105/1B, the petitioner states that he again purchased the said 2 acres from the said individuals by sale deed dated 24.10.2010, registered as Document No.4901 of 2010. According to the petitioner, he became the bona fide owner of a total extent of 10 acres and 29 cents in Survey Nos.105/1B and 105/1C by virtue of these purchases.

2. After purchasing the land, the petitioner states that he intended to form an approved layout. In relation thereto, it is stated that the petitioner executed a gift deed dated 10.12.2012 in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu under Document No.2786 of 2012. The petitioner also states that the layout promoted by him received approval from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning under order dated 12.08.2022.

3. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner states that the fifth respondent filed an application on 23.09.2023 before the District Revenue Officer, after a delay of about five decades, seeking rectification of UDR errors, and that the order impugned herein was issued. At the time of admission, an interim stay was granted and the said order operates as on date.

Counsel and their contentions

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kumar, assailed the interim order on multiple grounds. His first contention was that the fifth respondent did not establish his locus standi. Learned counsel contended that the District Revenue Officer is under an obligation to first verify whether the petitioner concerned has the locus standi to seek correction of the alleged UDR error.

5. His second contention was that the fifth respondent had approached the District Revenue Officer after an inordinate delay. While conceding that no period of limitation is prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.385 Revenue (General-3) Department dated 17.08.2004 (G.O. Ms. No.385), learned counsel submitted that a reasonable time should be implied even if a limitation period is not prescribed. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448. He also relied upon the judgment of