##PAGE1##

WP No. 30566 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

WP No. 30566 of 2024

AND

WMP NO. 33168 OF 2024,WMP NO. 33169 OF 2024

V.R.P.Avinashi Muthusamy,

S/o Late V.R. Perumalsamy,

Plot No 24, Royal Arcade,

Mathigiri Hosur 635 110,

Krishnagiri District.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The District Collector,

Erode 638 011.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Erode 638 001.

3.The Thasildar,

Taluk Office, Erode 638 001.

4.The Divisional Engineer (H),

Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project -II,

Room No 416, 4^th Floor,

Integrated Collectorate Building,

Tiruppur 641 604.

5.The Assistant Director,

Lands Survey And Records Department,

District Collector Office Compound,

Erode 638 011.

6.The District Revenue Officer,

Erode, Erode District.

(R6 Impleaded Vide Order Dated 12.12.2025

Made In WMP.31848/2025 In WP.30566/2024

By AQJ) Respondent(s)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 01:26:31 pm )

WP No. 30566 of 2024

PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the

records on the file of the 6^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.5951/2022/A9 (Ni.Aa),

dated 05.08.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents

to change the revenue records as 2619 square feet (2252 ¼ plus 366 ¾ ) in

Survey No.94/2 of Chithode Village, Erode Taluk, Covered in Patta No.183,

based on the title deeds of the petitioner.

(Prayer Amended Vide Order Dated

12.12.2025 Made In WMP.31861/2025 In

WP.No.30566/2024 By AQJ)

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Palanikumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Ravichander,

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

05.08.2022, passed by the 6^th respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s request for

the changes in the revenue records for the property more fully described in the

prayer to this writ petition.

2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the

same has been passed by total non-application of mind to the fact that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 01:26:31 pm )

WP No. 30566 of 2024

petitioner is the owner of property to an extent of 2252 ¼ sq.ft and exclusive

passage of 366 ¾ sq.ft, in total 2619 sq.ft in Natham Survey No.94/2, whereas,

the 6^th respondent in the impugned order has issued patta by reducing the extent

to 1400 sq.ft. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order on the

ground of violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not

afforded with an opportunity of hearing by the 6^th respondent before passing the

impugned order.

3.The petitioner has filed supporting documents before this Court in

support of his contention that he is entitled for the changes in the revenue

records of the property by disclosing the exact extent of his ownership as 2619

sq.ft ( 2251 ¾ sq.ft + 366 ¾ sq.ft).

4.A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent denying the

contentions of the petitioner. According to the 3^rd respondent, as seen from the

counter affidavit, they claim that, only as per the revenue records, the petitioner

was issued with the patta. Therefore, there is no necessity for them to correct the

patta as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically contends before this

Court that the exact extent of the land owned by the petitioner has not been

correctly disclosed in the patta issued in favour of the petitioner for the property

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 01:26:31 pm )

WP No. 30566 of 2024

more fully described in the prayer to this writ petition. The petitioner has also

filed supporting documents before this Court to substantiate his case.

6.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the said

documents since the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to explain

before the 6^th respondent prior to the passing the impugned order with regard to

the peti