##PAGE1##

W.P(MD)No.8017 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 26.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

W.P(MD)No.8017 of 2026 and

W.M.P(MD)No.6561 of 2026

S.Sivagnanam ... Petitioner

Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District,

Madurai.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk,

Madurai District.

4. K.Ramalingam ... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ni.Mu.No. 6811/2022/A1 dated 02.04.2024 and impugned Memorandum passed by the first respondent in Oo.Mu.No.G2/4298852/2026 dated 03.03.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently remit back the matter on the file of the first respondent

and direct to complete the same within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 03:11:25 pm )

W.P(MD)No.8017 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.T. Veerakumar

For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 and the impugned Memorandum passed by the first respondent dated 03.03.2026 and consequently to remit back the matter on the file of the first respondent with a

direction to complete the same within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner had filed a revision beyond the period of 90 days

prescribed under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987. Hence,

the respondent rejected the petitioner’s revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Act

does not prescribe any period of limitation and that the limitation is prescribed only under the Rules. Therefore, the respondents cannot reject the petitioner's

revision on that ground.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3

submitted that the petitioner is required to file a separate petition for condonation

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 03:11:25 pm )

W.P(MD)No.8017 of 2026

of delay as per Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987. Since the petitioner failed to file such a petition, the official respondent declined to

entertain the revision.

5. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered

opinion that under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, read with Rule 15 of the Rules, the petitioner is entitled to file a revision. The authority prescribed thereunder has revisional powers, either suo motu or on an application. The said provision also mandates that a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be afforded before passing any order. In the present case, no such opportunity was granted to the petitioner before rejecting the revision application. Therefore, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner is entitled to

relief.

6. The next contention of the petitioner is that the period of 90 days is

prescribed only under Rule 15 and not under the Act. When the statutory provision does not prescribe any limitation, the respondent cannot deny condonation of delay by relying on the Rule. Further, under Rule 15(2), it is provided that if sufficient cause is shown, the authority ought to condone the delay. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in W.P.No.14770 of 2018 reported in 2023-1-L.W.93 and the relevant portion is extracted

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 03:11:25 pm )

W.P(MD)No.8017 of 2026

hereunder:

“15. In view of the stand taken by the District Revenue Officer, by virtue of that the revision filed by the petitioner which is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 since