SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 27802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
S.Muthumariappan – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY WP(MD) NO. 6704 of 2026 S.Muthumariappan Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer Office of The District Revenue Officer Collectorate Campus Virudhunagar District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of Revenue Divisional Officer Rajapalayam Taluk Virudhunagar District.

3. The Tashildar Rajapalayam Taluk Virudhunagar District.

4. Balasubramanian Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Mahaboob Fazil for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Oliraja, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for a direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioners Appeal dated 24.02.2026 to rectify the error occurred under UDR scheme in respect of the petitioners property and pass orders within the time frame stipulated by this court.

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioners Appeal dated 24.02.2026 to rectify the error occurred under UDR scheme in respect of the petitioners property and pass orders within the time frame stipulated by this court.

2.The petitioner's grandmother's name was entered in the patta. However, there was a mistake while doing UDR. The fourth respondent's name was wrongly included as pattadhar. In fact, the 4th respondent is claiming right over the property and has filed a suit declaration with a prayer of declaration injunction and the same was dismissed and first appeal and second appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the 4th respondent is not having any right. Hence, the petitioner is seeking to rectify the mistake and has preferred an appeal before the appropriate authority, ie., the DRO as per the G.O., and the same is pending with the DRO.

3.Therefore, the DRO is directed to consider the petitioner's appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Tmg To

1. The District Revenue Officer Office of The District Revenue Officer Collectorate Campus Virudhunagar District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of Revenue Divisional Officer

3. The Tashildar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top