##PAGE1##

WP No. 23318 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-04-2026

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

WP No. 23318 of 2021 and

WMP No. 24593 of 2021

1. B.Muthulakshmi

2. S.Nagaraja Gurukkal ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer,

District Collector Office Buildings, Thiruvarur District – 610004.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

District Collector Office Buildings, Thiruvarur District - 610004.

3. The Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk,

Tiruvarur District. 4. V. Dhandapani

5. A. R. Mohan Kumar

6. A. R. Ramanarayanan ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for entire records pertaining to the order dated 23.07.2021 in Na.Ka.No.12314/2017/AA2 passed by the 1st

respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Govarthanan

__________

Page1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2026 03:14:30 pm )

WP No. 23318 of 2021

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Gowthamaraj, GA for R1 to 3 Mr.P.Chandrasekar for R4 to 6

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to call for the entire records pertaining to the

order dated 23.07.2021 in Na.Ka.No.12314/2017/AA2 passed by the 1st

respondent and quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the land comprised in S.No.205/2 (Old

S.No.164/2) of Alangudi Village to an extent of 670 sq.mt., was given to the first petitioner's grand father by one Ramachandran, since they belongs to Gurukkal family and doing poojas in the Alangudi Sivan Temple. After the demise of first petitioner's grandfather, the second petitioner, who is none other than the first petitioner’s father took possession of the same and constructed a house in the said land. Thereafter, in the year 1996, "Thooraya Patta" was issued in favour of second petitioner vide patta No.241 dated 18.06.1996. This being the case, the second petitioner settled the house in favour of the first petitioner by executing the settlement deed dated 14.03.2013 and patta also issued in the name of the first petitioner. Under this circumstances, the respondents 4 to 6 made a complaint before the revenue authorities as if the petitioners have encroached the land, which belongs to their family and filed a petition before the second respondent by challenging the patta issued in favour of the second petitioner. Subsequently, the second respondent conducted a

__________

Page2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2026 03:14:30 pm )

WP No. 23318 of 2021

detailed enquiry and passed an order stating that the patta issued in favour of the second petitioner cannot be cancelled and directed the parties to approach the appropriate Civil Court to work out their remedy. However, the second respondent beyond his jurisdiction ventured into the title of the said property and extracted certain superfluous statement, against which, the second petitioner preferred an appeal dated 26.10.2018, before the first respondent. Later, the said appeal was withdrawn by the second petitioner, which was also recorded by the first respondent. Even though it was recorded, the first respondent proceeded with the matter and passed an order dated 23.07.2021 on merits, by cancelling the patta issued in favour of the second petitioner. Challenging the

same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the first

respondent has no power to go into the merits of the case, when the second petitioner has withdrawn the appeal before hearing. Accordingly, he prays for

appropriate orders.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that

the matter in this writ petition is civil in nature. Hence, this Court may direct the parties concerned to approach the Civil Court to agitate their issues, as

directed by the second respondent.

__________

Page3 of 6

https://www.mhc