Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Muthugapatti Village Panchayat – Appellant
Versus
Collector, Namakkal District – Respondent
Writ Petition
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vikram Veerasamy
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3, Mr.Rahul Balaji for R4
Pending civil suits for injunction do not bar revenue record mutation based on gift deed, subject to suit outcomes.
Headnote:The petitioner village panchayat sought mandamus under Article 226 to direct subdivision of properties in specified survey numbers per gift deed dated 29.04.2003 and mutation of revenue records as panchayat road. Application for mutation dated 12.12.2023 rejected due to pending civil suit O.S.No.144/2023 over one survey number; court found rejection mechanical as gift deed supports mutation for road purpose despite suits for injunction by donor's legal heirs. Pending suits do not bar mutation subject to their outcome; court directed consideration of subsequent application dated 15.12.2023. Issues framed around effect of pending injunction suits on revenue mutation based on gift deed; ratio that public institution entitled to mutation absent established title by claimants, suits not obstructive. Writ petition disposed directing mutation within four weeks subject to suit outcomes.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for mutation based on gift deed for road. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. respondents cite pending suits and title dispute. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. pending injunction suits do not bar mutation. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. direct mutation subject to suit outcomes. (Para 8) |
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 1st to 3rd respondents herein to sub divide the properties situated in S.No.241/10B1A, S.No.241/14A and S.No.241/14B of Muthugapatti Village, Sendamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District as per the Gift deed dated 29.04.2003 and consequently direct the 1st and 3rd respondents herein to mutate the revenue records in so far as the subdivided extent is concerned as a Panchayat Road.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vikram Veerasamy For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.Rahul Balaji for R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for a mandamus, directing the 1st to 3rd respondents herein to sub divide the properties situated in S.No.241/10B1A, S.No.241/14A and S.No.241/14B of Muthugapatti Village, Sendamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District as per the Gift deed dated 29.04.2003 and consequently direct the 1st and 3rd respondents herein to mutate the revenue records in so far as the subdivided extent is concerned as a Panchayat Road.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the petitioner filed an application to mutate the patta in the name of the petitioner Panchayat vide application dated 12.12.2023 and the same has been rejected on the same day, citing reason that there is a case in O.S.No.144 of 2023 is pending with respect to the Survey No.241/14B whereas the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the application for mutation of patta was made not only for Survey No.241/14B, but also for Survey Nos.241/10B1A and 241/14A as well. He would submit that no reason was assigned for refusing mutation of patta for other two survey numbers. Under these circumstances, he would submit that a gift deed was executed by the petitioner’s father in favour of the petitioner Panchayat. On the strength of the gift deed, the petitioner made an application.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Official respondents would submit that there is a suit pending with regard to Survey No.241/14B therefore, the respondents are not in a position to consider the petitioner’s application and she would further submit that the petitioner is not at all owner of the property. Since the property is not in the name of the petitioner, they are not in a position to consider the petitioner’s application.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the legal representative of the donor filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 2023 for the purpose permanent injunction and another suit filed in O.S.No.110 of 2025 for injunction. He would submit that there was no road in the subject property and for the purpose of laying road, the 4th respondent’s father / petitioner’s father gifted the property and the 4th respondent not aware of the said gift deed executed by her father. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the material available on record.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has made an application for the purpose of mutation of record with regard to S.No.241/10B1A, S.No.241/14A and S.No.241/14B, to which, the 4th respondent’s father executed a gift deed dated 29.04.2003 for the purpose of laying road alone.
7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made an application for the purpose of mutation of records by virtue of the application dated 12.12.2023 and the same was rejected, citing reason that there was a suit pending in O.S.No.144 of 2023 with regard to S.No.214/14B. The said suit is only for the purpose of permanent injunction. The 4th respondent’s father gifte
