Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue officer, Perambalur Taluk, Perambalur District – Respondent
WMP NO. 12324 OF 2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Ilamurugu
For the Respondent(s):Mr.C.Jayaprakash Govt.Advocate For R1 to R3
Mandamus directs revenue authority to decide patta rectification representation on merits after hearing parties.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The case concerns rectification of erroneous entries in Urban Direct Revenue (UDR) patta records under revenue administration schemes, where petitioners claim survey number correction from 136/1B to 136/1A based on title deeds and Field Measurement Book (FMB) records for property measuring 1.56 acres. Court finds no prejudice in considering the representation dated 09.07.2025 on merits after hearing objections. Second Paragraph: Key issue framed as whether official respondents must rectify alleged erroneous survey number entry in UDR patta standing in private respondents' names. Ratio decidendi emphasizes administrative authorities must decide representations within time frame, hearing affected parties, without court opining on merits. Last Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing first respondent to pass final orders within twelve weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek udr patta survey number correction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court directs consideration without prejudice. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. mandamus for final orders within twelve weeks. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The petitioners seek for rectification of the UDR patta, standing in the name of the private respondents, namely the respondents 4 to 9.
2. According to the petitioners, there is an erroneous entry made by the official respondents during the UDR Scheme in the patta standing in the name of the private respondents. According to the petitioners, the survey number has to be corrected.
3. The petitioners had given a representation on 09.07.2025 to the first respondent, seeking for rectification of the UDR patta, standing in the name of the private respondents viz., the respondents 4 to 9. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, this Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Mr. C. Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 4 to 9, notice to the respondents 4 to 9 is dispensed with by this Court.
5. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner’s representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the objections of the respondents 4 to 9 as well as any other third party whom the first respondent deems it fit to enquire within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
6. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the first respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 09.07.2025, seeking for correction of the alleged erroneous entry said to have been made in the UDR patta and revenue records for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing the objections of the respondents 4 to 9 as well as any other third party whom the first respondent deems it fit to enquire.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is ordered subject to payment of separate Court fee.
