BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD).No.20667 of 2025

1.K.Chellammal

2.K.Vijayan

3.K.Sangaiya 4.K.Rakappan

5.R.Vijayaraman

6.V.Veeragavan ... Petitioners Vs

1.V.Madhavan

2.Manoharan ... Respondents PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order, dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), allowing the petition under T.C.T.P.No.17 of 2023.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.R.Laxman For R1 : Mr.R.Mathava Selvan For R2 : Mr.M.Ajith Kumar

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 25.08.2025, passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), allowing the petition under T.C.T.P.No.17 of

2023.

2. The present application is filed against the order of rejecting the impleading application, claiming that he is the cultivating tenant. The only submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the order was passed on the same day of filing the application, which is on 04.03.2024.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the application was filed on 20.09.2024 to get the revision petitioners to be impleaded, and for the appearance of parties, the case was adjourned to 01.10.2024, and it was further posted to 21.10.2024 for the production of documents to establish that he has the right over the property as a cultivating tenant, and the same was not produced. So the case was adjourned to 23.12.2024, 26.03.2025, and 28.04.2025. Even on two occasions the petitioners did not appear to produce any material to establish that they are the cultivating tenants.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a revenue record to show that he has paid the kist for the fasli year 1409, issued by the Village Administrative Officer, in the name of one Kalyani Servai. These are not sufficient materials to establish that the revision petitioners are the cultivating tenants.

5. In view of the above-said submissions, this Court is of the view that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

7. This Court places on record its appreciation for the commendable efforts of the legal aid counsel for the second respondent, namely Mr. M. Ajith Kumar, for conducting the case diligently and providing valuable assistance to this Court. The High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench shall pay a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards remuneration to the legal aid counsel for the second respondent for the conduct of the case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without fail.

8. The registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Legal Aid Committee for information.

9. After passing this order, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that he was not heard before the competent authority as well as before this Court. Since this Court is not satisfied with the above-mentioned submissions, this Court is inclined to impose costs upon the revision petitioners. This Court, after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners only, passed this order. Accordingly, there shall be a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to be paid by the revision petitioners into the Government Account within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The District Collector shall proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act, if the above said amount is not paid by the revision petitioners, within the above said prescribed time.

Speaking : Yes / No 19.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TM To

1.The Special Deputy Collector, (Revenue Court), Madurai.

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Se