1. Challenge to order rectifying UDR errors — Delay in seeking correction — Locus standi of applicant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Robert Rubin Raj – Appellant
Versus
District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025|WMP (MD) Nos.5763 and 5765 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N. Dilipkumar
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Thambidurai, Mr. B. Saravanan, Mr. C. Gangaiamaran
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N. Dilipkumar
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Thambidurai, Mr. B. Saravanan, Mr. C. Gangaiamaran
The doctrine of laches applies to discretionary equitable remedies and cannot be used to reject applications for correcting UDR errors under G.O. Ms. No. 385, as the District Revenue Officer's power is administrative, not discretionary.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - G.O. Ms. No. 385 (Revenue) - Rectification of Updating of Registry (UDR) errors - Whether the doctrine of laches can be applied to reject an application for correction of UDR errors - The District Revenue Officer exercises power conferred by an executive order and does not exercise equitable or discretionary jurisdiction; therefore, relief cannot be declined on equitable considerations, including delay or laches (Paras 19-24).
(B) Scope of G.O. Ms. No. 385 - Power to examine title deeds - To verify if an UDR error occurred, the District Revenue Officer may examine title deeds (sale, gift, exchange, partition deeds) to ascertain the link between pre-UDR pattadhars and UDR pattadhars; such scrutiny is necessary to perform the mandate and cannot be construed as an adjudication of title disputes (Para 26).
(C) Interplay between G.O. Ms. No. 385 and Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - Jurisdiction of the District Revenue Officer under G.O. Ms. No. 385 is limited to inquiring into errors occurred during the UDR period; disputes relating to transactions in the post-UDR period or the validity of conveyance deeds must be adjudicated by jurisdictional civil courts or under the Patta Pass Book Act (Paras 27-28).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased land in Survey Nos. 105/1B and 105/1C and obtained Patta No. 1367. The fifth respondent, the grandson of a pre-UDR pattadhar, filed an application for rectification of UDR errors. The District Revenue Officer (DRO) issued an order restoring the revenue records to pre-UDR status, finding no link between the pre-UDR pattadhars and the UDR pattadhars. The petitioner challenged this order on grounds of locus standi, inordinate delay (laches), and the contention that revenue authorities cannot decide title.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the fifth respondent established locus standi via genealogy. Since G.O. Ms. No. 385 does not prescribe a limitation period and the DRO's power is administrative rather than discretionary, the plea of laches was rejected. The DRO's action in restoring pre-UDR status was valid, although the DRO exceeded his remit by commenting on the petitioner's layout approval.
Issues: Whether the fifth respondent had locus standi to seek correction of UDR errors, whether the application was barred by laches, and whether the DRO's examination of title deeds amounted to an adjudication of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of laches is an equitable principle applicable to discretionary public law remedies and does not apply to the administrative function of correcting UDR errors under an executive order. Furthermore, examining title documents to establish a link between parties is an essential part of identifying UDR errors and does not constitute a determination of title.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; order of the DRO maintained, with a restraint on the Tahsildar from permitting further mutations until civil disputes are adjudicated.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
revenue law
-
updating of registry
- correction of u.d.r. errors
- patta pass book act
-
updating of registry
-
executive orders
- g.o. ms. no.385
-
revenue law
-
practice and procedure
-
limitation
- limitation act
- laches
-
jurisdiction
- civil court jurisdiction
-
evidence
- locus standi
-
limitation
-
constitutional law
- right to property
Table of Contents
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 the Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh , (1973) 2 SCC 705.
6. By referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 695 (Narsing Rao), particularly paragraphs 25 and 31 thereof, he submitted that even where there is no limitation period, the Supreme Court held that powers of revision should be exercised within a reasonable period. He also relied upon paragraph 37 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in North Eastern Chemicals Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd., (2023) 19 SCC 798 (North Eastern Chemicals), for the proposition that even where a limitation period is not prescribed, the court should undertake a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the nature of proceeding, the length of delay, the possibility of prejudice being caused and the scheme of the statute in question.
7. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that revenue authorities are not entitled to determine questions of title. By referring to the judgment of this Court in W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. v. The District Revenue Officer, (2016 SCC OnLine Mad 8958) (WS Industries), particularly paragraphs 29 and 37 thereof, learned counsel submitted that
