Revenue records do not confer title to property; once a competent civil court establishes title through a decree, revenue authorities must mutate records accordingly, regardless of prior revenue entries or unregistered sale deeds.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu. No.11398/2025/A2 dated 16.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 to mutate the patta and other revenue records for the petitioner's lands in Survey No.817 and 818 situated at Kunnoor Village, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District.

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu. No. 11398/2025/A2 dated 16.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 to mutate the patta and other revenue records for the petitioner's lands in Survey No.817 and 818 situated at Kunnoor Village, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner claims rights over the properties in Survey Nos. 817 and 818, measuring 5 acres and 79 cents, which originally belonged to the petitioner’s ancestor ie., the petitioner’s grandfather, Veerabathiran. Subsequently, the properties came into the possession of the petitioner’s father, Vadival, and the patta and revenue records stood in his name. During the UDR Settlement, one of the relatives, namely James, allegedly used his influence to get the patta transferred to the name of his wife, Amirtham/the 4th respondent herein. Thereafter, the patta was transferred to their son, and presently, the patta for the said properties stands in the name of the 5th respondent, Vasanthaguru, allegedly without legal basis. In the meanwhile, respondents 4 and 5, along with James, filed O.S. No. 12 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti, seeking a permanent injunction with respect to the said properties. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner’s father passed away on 02.03.2009, leaving behind the petitioner’s mother, Saraswathi, the petitioner, the petitioner’s brother, Muthukumaresan, and sister, Rajeswari, as his legal heirs. After a full trial, the trial court dismissed the suit on 26.07.2019, negating the plaintiffs’ claim to possession and enjoyment of the properties and rejecting their prayer for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had alleged that the properties were sold to them through an unregistered sale deed by the petitioner’s father, which the trial court rejected. Aggrieved by this decision, the respondents filed an appeal in A.S. No. 35 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Theni, which was also dismissed on 18.12.2024. A second appeal was subsequently filed and dismissed as well. In light of the above, the petitioner is seeking to mutate the patta in their name. However, the claim was rejected through the impugned order, with the respondents noting that the petitioner had previously filed a petition before the DRO, which was decided against the petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge that order. Consequently, the impugned order holds that the petitioner is not entitled to the property.

3. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

4. It is seen from the records that the title dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 had already been adjudicated in the civil proceedings up to the second appeal. There is a specific finding rendered by this Court in SA(MD).No.297 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the property, relevant para is extracted hereunder:-

''The appellants also relied on Exs.A22 and A25(orders of the RDO and DRO in patta proceedings), However, as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Su