BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 09.02.2026 Pronounced on : 13.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER W.P.(MD)No.18622 of 2022 and WMP (MD) Nos.13549 and 13550 of 2022 A.Palsamy ... Petitioner(s)

Vs.

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

2. The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

3. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Jenagai Mariamman Temple, Sholavandhan/the Fit Person, Arulmigu Sri Karungapillai Perumal Thirukovil, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 192/J/2020 dated 07.01.2022 cancelling the patta stood in the petitioner's name in respect of his landed property an extent of 0.52.5 Ares, in Survey No. 18/5, Kovilankulam Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District and quash the same as illegal and for other reliefs.

For Petitioner :M/s.J.Lawrance For Respondents :Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.S.Manohar for R3

O R D E R

Challenging the patta cancellation proceedings in Na.Ka.No.

192/J/2020 dated 07.01.2022 passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, whereby the first respondent, the District Revenue Officer, cancelled the Patta No. 1578 standing in the name of the petitioner and granted patta in favour of the third respondent temple. Further the Tahsildar was direected to carryout necessary mutation in the 'A' Register, Chitta, Adangal and the computer patta system.

3. The facts of the case are that the third respondent temple submitted a representation to the District Revenue Officer stating that, in respect of the subject land in Survey No.18/5, Kovilankulam Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, patta had been granted in favour of Arulmigu Sri Karukappillai Perumal Temple after a detailed enquiry under the Minor Inam Abolition and Conversion in to Ryotwari Settlement operations. However, during the land records Updating Registry Scheme (UDR), entries were made in favour of the petitioner.

Further, Patta No.1578 was also issued to the petitioner.

4. Based on the said representation, notices were issued to the petitioner and other concerned parties. An enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner participated. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record, the District Revenue Officer found that the order of the Inam Abolition Settlement Tahsildar dated 31.12.1969 relating to the disputed land required to be given effect to and that the subsequent UDR entries had been made erroneously. It was observed that the revenue records must align with the inam abolition settlement orders and that registration of private individuals in respect of temple-owned Inam land could not be sustained.

5. Accordingly, the erroneous entries in Patta No.1578 relating to Survey No.18/5 were cancelled and patta was ordered to be restored in the name of the third respondent temple. The Tahsildar was directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent/Temple.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the subject property through four sale deeds executed during the year 1969 and also during the year 1981 and 1989. The UDR entries were effected based on the petitioner’s sale deeds. It was contended that the District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to decide questions of title as though exercising the powers of a civil court. If the third respondent temple had any grievance, it ought to have approached the competent civil court to set