BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER T.Sivaneswari ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

2.The Revenue Tahsildar, Kallikudi, Madurai District.

3.Usharani

4.Durga Devi 5.Velmurugan

6.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai. ... Respondents [R6 is suo motu impleaded vide this order]

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 petitioner’s appeal pending before the first respondent dated 14.07.2025 within the stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabhu For R1, R2 & R6 : 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 petitioner’s appeal dated 14.07.2025, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

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 third to fifth respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of the subject property, a Power of Attorney was executed by one Kuruvammal on 12.08.1996 in favour of the petitioner’s husband, who in turn executed a Sale Deed in the year 2011 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner and her husband have been in possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of execution of the Power of Attorney. During the UDR scheme, the UDR patta was wrongly transferred in the name of one Varadharaja Reddiar. After his demise, the daughters of the said Varadharaja Reddiar, taking advantage of the erroneous patta, sold the property to one Alagarsamy, who in turn sold the same to one Velmurugan. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent seeking cancellation of the UDR patta. The second respondent, vide memorandum dated 04.06.2025, informed the petitioner that he is not the competent authority to cancel the UDR patta. Consequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 14.07.2025, which is still pending. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents, on instructions, submits that the District Revenue Officer is the competent authority to cancel the patta and that he is not a party to the present Writ Petition and that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation, the same would be disposed of by the District Revenue Officer on merits and in accordance with law.

5. In view of the submissions made, the District Revenue Officer (DRO), Madurai, is suo motu impleaded as the sixth respondent in this Writ Petition. This Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the petitioner to file a fresh application/appeal before the sixth respondent. On receipt of the same, the sixth respondent shall consider the application/appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of such application/appeal. The application/appeal shall be disposed of after conducting an enquiry. The sixth respondent is also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties who may be affected by such decision, before passing any order. In the event of any rival claims, the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies before the competent Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

[K.SURENDER, J.]

22.01.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No To

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

2.The Revenue Tahsildar, Kallikudi, Madurai District.

3.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.

K.SURENDER , J .

JEN

22.01.2026