BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD) No.570 of 2026 R.Shahjahan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.The Sub Registrar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

5.K.Sangamayan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 28.09.2025 filed by the petitioner as against the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2173/2024/A1 dated 18.09.2025.

For Petitioner : M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 28.09.2025 filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.2173/2024/A1 dated 18.09.2025.

2. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself, dispensing with the notice to the fifth respondent, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against him.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the property comprised in Survey No.570/2, measuring an extent of 0.29.0 hectares, situated at Poondi Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, from one P.Shanmugam vide a sale deed dated 20.11.1995. The said Shanmugam had purchased the same from one S.Gurusamy vide a sale deed dated 17.04.1995.

4. The fifth respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kodaikanal, seeking a declaration that the aforesaid two sale deeds are null and void. The said suit was dismissed for default on 04.08.2023. I.A.No.264 of 2023, filed by the fifth respondent for restoration of the suit, was also withdrawn by him.

5. However, the fifth respondent thereafter filed an appeal before the second respondent challenging the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent, by an order dated 18.09.2025, directed the third respondent to restore the patta to its earlier position, pursuant to which the patta was mutated in the name of the fifth respondent.

6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.09.2025, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent on 28.09.2025. However, no action has been taken on the same till date. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first to fourth respondents would submit that the petitioner's revision petition dated 28.09.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed by the first respondent within a period of sixteen weeks.

8. Recording the above submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s revision petition dated 28.09.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said revision petition shall be considered and disposed of after conducting an enquiry. The first respondent is also directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the fifth respondent and any other interested parties who may be affected by the decision. Since the petitioner contends that pursuant to the mutation of patta in the name of the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent has attempted to alienate the property, this Court directs that if the petitioner is inclined to file a stay a