BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and WMP(MD).No.5730 of 2026 Senthamarai Kannan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Revenue Officer Sivangangai District, Sivagangai.

2. K.Periyasamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order in Pa.Mu.B4/23617/2023 dated 12.12.2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selva Aditya For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate (R1)

: Mr.G.Sivakumar (For R2)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records of the impugned order in Pa.Mu.B4/23617/2023 dated 12.12.2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject property originally belonged to one P. Muthukaruppan, S/o Periyasamy, who was in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 50 years, and the patta stood in his name under Patta No. 561. Subsequently, he sold the property to one Senghairaj by a registered sale deed dated 08.12.2008 (Doc. No. 3626). Thereafter, Senghairaj was in possession of the property and the patta was transferred to his name. After the demise of Senghairaj, his wife and daughter, namely Muthumeenal and Sankari, executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 23.05.2011 in favour of one Muthusamy. Acting under the said power of attorney, the petitioner and one V. Senthamaraikannan purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 27.05.2011 for valuable consideration, and patta was subsequently issued in their names under Patta No. 1892. Thereafter, when the petitioner attempted to survey the property and lay boundary stones, the second respondent interfered with the same. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 1733 of 2023, which was allowed. Meanwhile, the second respondent approached the first respondent claiming that the subject property originally belonged to him based on an assignment patta issued in the year 1977, and that the name of one M. Periyasamy had been wrongly entered during the UDR process. In view of the dispute, the petitioner, along with V. Senthamarikannan, filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 117 of 2024 before the Sub Court, Manamadurai, against the second respondent, seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the subject property. The second respondent is arrayed as the defendant in the said suit. In such circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed. In the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner’s vendor had not produced any documentary evidence except the patta. The first respondent concluded that the parties must abide by the outcome of the pending civil suit and accordingly decided to retain the patta in the name of Periyasamy son of Krishnan, to whom the assignment had originally been granted.

3. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. After perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the District Revenue Officer (DRO) has arrived at the correct conclusion and has rightly retained the patta in the name of Periyasamy son of Krishnan, who is the original assignee under D.A. No. 90/97 dated 30.09.1977. Subsequently, based on the said assignment, an individual patta was also issued in the name of Periyasamy son of Krishnan, the second respondent, bearing Patta No. 509. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first respondent.

5. However, both the petitioner as well as the second respondent shall not deal with or encumber the property until the disposal of the suit. The petitioner is at liberty to put forth his defence before the trial Court. The Civil Court shall independently arrive at its conclusion after perusing the available records.

6. With the ab