A writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory remedy of revision exists, as the relevant authority has the power to condone delays in filing such revisions upon showing sufficient cause.

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 in Mu.Mu.A1/3459/2024 of the third respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kaleeswaran

For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.Ragavendran

Government Advocate

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the third respondent, cancelling the patta issued in the name of the petitioner, on the petition filed by the fifth and sixth respondents.

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 and sixth respondents, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against them.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent, without any oral or material evidence, cancelled the patta and allowed the petition filed by the fifth and sixth respondents, who had filed the said petition without impleading all the necessary parties; that though no enquiry notice had been served on the petitioner, the petitioner appeared and raised an oral objection; and that however, without considering the same, the third respondent passed the impugned order.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first to fourth respondents would submit that without approaching the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer, against the impugned order passed by the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by filing a revision under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a limited period of thirty days for filing a revision before the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer and that the said period has lapsed; and that for the said reason, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition against the impugned order.

6. According to the petitioner, the reason for filing the present Writ Petition without approaching the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer, against the order of the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, is that the thirty-day appeal period has lapsed.

7. Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 makes it clear that if an aggrieved party files a revision after the expiry of the prescribed period and if the District Revenue Officer is satisfied that the said party had just and sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period, the delay can be condoned. Therefore, the petitioner can approach the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer, even after the expiry of the said period, by showing sufficient cause. Since the petitioner intends to contend that the orders passed by the third respondent are contrary to the facts, the same can be agitated before the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer, by filing a revision.

8. The parties shall maintain status quo for a period of one week so as to enable the petitioner to file a revision petition.

9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.