IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.Kandasamy, S/o.Late Mr. Chinnappan, No.4 /113 B, Panapalayam Pudhur, Komarapalayam, Velliankadu, Coimbatore 641 104.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The Assistant Settlement Officer, (Sourth), Survey House, Ezhilagam, 3rd Floor, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Railway Station Road, Coimbatore.

3.The Thasildar (North), Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore 18.

4.M/s.Jain Marbles, Rep. by Proprietrix Mrs. Rekha K.Lund W/o. Mr. Kishore No.32 - A, 6th Cross, Bharathi Park Road, Coimbatroe 641 043.

5.The Commissioner Of Land Administration, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

6.The Commissioner Of Survey And Settlement, Chennai.

(R5, R6 Suo Motu Impleaded Vide Order Dt 09.11.2021 Made In WP.7203/2021 by GKIJ)

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent pertains to impugned order dated 23.07.2020 in Na.Ka.No.I -2 /1866 /2020, and quash the same and consequently directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 03.03.2020 afresh, seeking for issuance of patta to the petitioner without taking note of delay.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Manimaran For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Gowthamaraj Government Advocate For R1 to R3, R5 & R6 Mr.K.Venkatasubban For M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, For R4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 1^st respondent dated 23.07.2020 in Na.Ka.No.I -2 /1866 /2020, and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 03.03.2020 afresh, seeking for issuance of patta to the petitioner.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the properties morefully described in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition was originally assigned to the petitioner’s forefather for their service rendered during the British era. In the year 1968, some third parties viz., Sellathal, Kuttiammal, Pethi chettiar, Arumuga Chettiar, Pahala and Subbulakshmi Ammal have fraudulently obtained ryotwari patta for the subject properties. From them, the 4^th respondent illegally derived the title of the subject properties. Therefore, the petitioner vide representation dated 03.03.2020, requested the 1^st respondent to cancel the patta issued in the name of the 4^th respondent and to issue patta in respect of the subject properties in favour of the petitioner. However, the 1^st respondent rejected the petitioner’s representation on the ground that the petitioner’s representation was passe and outdated. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 would submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved over the order of the 1^st respondent, he supposed to have preferred an appeal under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

However, the petitioner has wrongly approached this Court.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and he learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

5.Considering the submissions made by both parties, it is evident that in the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved over the patta being issued in favour of the 4^th respondent in respect of the subject properties and thus he made a representation to cancel the same before the 1^st respondent. However, the 1^st respondent has rejected the petitioner’s representation. If the petitioner is aggrieved over the order of the 1^st respondent, he has supposed to file appeal under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, within 90 days, instead he has filed the present writ petition. Such being the case, this Court is of the v