High Court · 2025

W.A.No.1042 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.A.No. 1042 of 2025andC.M.P.No. 8389 of 2025N.Jayakumar.. Appellantvs1.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Officer, Grand Souther Trunk Road, Chengalpattu, Venbakkam, Tamil Nadu – 600 311.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadaperi, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.3.The Tahsildar, Otteri, Vandaloor, Chennai – 600 048.4.Balraj Nalini Devi5.K.Mallika6.Kalpana1/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 20257.Vasthala8.Usha Rani9.Vijayalakshmi .. RespondentsPrayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, 1865 against order dated 05.03.2025 made in W.P.No. 37877 of 2024. For Appellant:No appearanceFor Respondents:Mr.A.Selvendran,Special Government PleaderFor R1 to R3Mr.T.S.Baskaran,For Mr.R.Saravanakumar For R4 to R7Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior CounselFor Mr.M.SriramFor R8JUDGMENT(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us and the parties are referred to per the array in the appeal.2. The prayer in writ petition was for a certiorarified mandamus in respect of proceedings dated 13.11.2024 passed by the District Revenue Officer (DRO/R1) reversing order of the Revenue Divisional Officer 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025(RDO/R2) dated 14.03.2024. A consequential direction was sought to the third respondent, the Tahsildar, to issue a patta in favour of the appellant in consideration of an application filed by him on 24.07.2024. 3. The case of the appellant is that the property ad-measuring 2.21 acres at Survey No. 1/2 part, Puthur Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District (‘property’ / ‘property in question ‘/ ‘subject property’) had initially belonged to one Mr.Vittal Naidu, who settled the same in favour of one of his daughters, Mrs.Mahila, vide settlement deed dated 14.12.1959. 4. Mrs.Mahila had sold the property to the appellant vide sale deed presented on 08.06.2012, though registered in 2024. In the interim, she had come to know that the revenue records in respect of the subject property had been tampered with and had approached the DRO seeking correction of revenue records to delete the names of various persons which was found therein. 5. Proceedings dated 06.11.2012 had come to be passed by the DRO wherein the DRO states that notices had been issued to a large number of persons of whom only some appeared. The notices had been 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025issued calling upon them to produce material to substantiate as to in whose favour the patta for the subject property should stand. 6. Since no person had produced any material to substantiate their claim to the property, in those circumstances, he restored the patta in favour of the original owner Mr.Vittal Naidu. A caveat had however been included by the DRO stating that if proper documents were in possession of the persons who claimed patta to the subject property, they could approach him and he would consider their case based on the material furnished by them. 7. As far as the appellant is concerned, sale deed dated 08.06.2012 had not been registered since there was a dispute on the valuation of the property. Deficit stamp was paid in 2023 and the document released in 2024. In the meantime, the private respondents had so appeared before the DRO producing material in support of their claim for ownership of the property, considering which, computerized generated patta and other revenue records have been transferred in their favour. 8. A representation had come to be made by the aggrieved appellant before the RDO, who cancelled the patta issued in favour of the 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025private respondents and restored patta in the name of Mr.Vittal Naidu as directed by the DRO under proceedings dated 06.11.2012. 9. Aggrieved, the private respondents appealed before the DRO, who reversed order dated 14.03.2024 vide his proceedings dated 13.11.2024 restoring the patta to the names of the private respondents. Not stopping there, he stated that if at all the appellant was aggrieved, he should work out his remedy before the civil court. 10. The main argument of the appellant before the writ court was that proceedings dated 06.11.2012 had rightly restored patta to the name of the original owner and if there were any disputes thereupon, it was for the parties to work out their remedies before the competent civil court. Proceedings dated 13.11.2024 had been assailed as being a review of proceedings dated 06.11.2012 that was impermissible. 11. As regards the rival claim put up by the private respondents, those deeds were clearly forged as they did not contain the left thumb impression of the vendor. According to appellant, it was for this reason that Mrs.Mahila had approached the DRO on 01.09.2008 seeking correction of the revenue records and patta. 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 202512. All these aspects had been taken note of by the DRO, who had restored the patta in the name of the original owner rightly stating that the parties should go to the civil court if they were aggrieved, to settle their disputes. This order ought not to have been reviewed or disturbed or varied, in any manner, as has been done vide the impugned proceedings dated 13.11.2024. 13. Per contra, Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.M.Sriram and Mr.T.S.Baskaran, both for the private respondents, would deny that the sale deeds executed in their favour by Mrs. Mahila in 1982 were forged. They would point out that the revenue records had stood in their name since execution of sale deed in 1982 and that the right claimed by the appellant was only the basis of a sale deed executed in 2024. Their right is thus far anterior to the right of the appellant. The restoration of the patta in their name is thus unimpeachable. 14. The State, through Mr.A.Selvendran, supports the case of the private respondents, and has also produced some of the original records in support of their contentions that we will refer to in the course of the discussion. 15. We have heard all learned counsel and had perused the 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025material records. 16. The narration of facts has been set out in the paragraphs supra, and we will now advert to the averments of the parties, in seriatim. The private respondents have produced copies of the sale deeds executed in their favour in 1982 by Mrs. Mahila. The recitals reveal that the subject property belonged to Mr.Vittal Naidu who had purchased executed a settlement deed on 14.12.1959 being D.oc No.3214/1959 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram in favour of Mrs. Mahila. 17. They had purchased the properties thereafter and the revenue records have been mutated and stand in their name since 1982 onwards till date except for a brief period between 06.11.2012 and 18.02.2013. It is however true that those deeds do not contain the Left Thumb Impression of Mrs. Mahila. 18. As for the complaint filed on 01.09.2008 by Mrs. Mahila in regard to tampering of the revenue records, enquiry was caused by the authority resulting in proceedings dated 06.11.2012 returning pata in favour of Mr. Vittal Naidu. 19. Proceedings of the DRO dated 06.11.2012 are a consequence of the enquiry initiated by Mrs. Mahila in 2008. The DRO states that 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025notices were issued to several persons and many of the parties to whom notices were issued did not appear. Hence, and he concludes that, if there are any parties in possession of the records to establish that the patta should be issued in their name, they could approach him with the relevant records. 20. Proceedings dated 06.11.2012 to the extent to which they are relevant, their material, are extracted below:-5)nkw;go jhth bjhlh;ghf midj;J Mtz';fSk; ed;F ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;ljpYk; kDjhuh; kw;Wk; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh;fs; neuo tprhuizapd;nghJ bjhptpf;fg;gl;l tptu';fSk; ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;ljpy; nkw;go brhj;J 15/12/1930y; jpU/rj;jpaehuhaz bul;o vd;gthplkpUe;J kDjhuUila je;ij fpiuak; bgw;Wk; mr;brhj;jpid 1959y; kDjhuUf;F brl;oy;bkz;l; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ epy clik nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpw;F Ke;ija fpuhk fzf;Ffis ghprPyid bra;jjpy; kDjhuUila je;ijapd; bgahpy; jhth brhj;Jf;fs; jhf;fyhfp cs;sJ/ jw;nghija gl;lhjhuh;fspy; xU rpyh; tprhuizf;F M$uhfpa[k; jhth brhj;jpid jw;nghija gl;lhjhuh;fs; neuo fpiuak; bgw;w Mtz';fs; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jg;glhjjhy; jw;nghija gl;lhjhuh;fs; gl;lh khw;wk; bgw;wJ re;njfj;jpw;fplkhdjhf cs;sJ/ gl;lh khw;w';fs; midj;Jk; chpa Mtz';fis bgw;W gl;lh khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;lJ vd mWjpapl;Lf;Tw ,ayhj gl;rj;jpy; tl;lhl;rpah; tH';fpa gl;lhf;fs; K:yk; ,g;g[yk; Fwpj;J Vw;gl;Ls;s midj;J gjpt[fSk; uj;J bra;ag;glntz;oa[s;sJ/ vdnt nkny gj;jp 2y; kDjhuh; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epy';fs; aht[k; epy clik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpw;F Kd;g[ 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025fpuhkfzf;Ffspy; ,Ue;jthW itf;f br';fy;gl;L tl;lhl;rpaUf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; jw;nghija M$h; gl;lhjhuh;fs; chpa Mtz';fs; rkh;g;gpf;Fk;gl;rj;jpy; Mtz';fis ghprPyid bra;J mth;fs; bgahpy; gl;lh jhf;fy; bra;at[k; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/,t;thizapd; kPJ ,lWw;wth;fs; murhiz vz;/409 tUtha; (SS (2)) (Not legible) Jiw ehs;/02/07/2008d;go mjpfhuKila ePjpkd;wj;jpid (Competent Court) mQqfp ghpfhuk; njof;bfhs;syhk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/xk;-? v!;/Mh;/Rjh;rd; khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh;fh";rpg[uk;/ 21. Since the private respondents maintain vociferously that no notices had been received by them from the office of the DRO, we had called for and have been shown the original records, specifically on two points. The first point is to verify whether at all any notices had been issued to the private respondents by the DRO. The records do not contain any proof of notices having been sent to them. 22. However, this may not be very material as the private respondent have come to know of the proceedings before the DRO and have themselves appeared before him to establish their claim, satisfied with which he has issued pattas in their favour. This is the second aspect that we had verified from the records. 23. The records produced in the cases of two private respondents viz., Mrs.Mallika and Mrs.R.Kalpana, reveal that they had appeared 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025before the DRO along with a copy of the settlement deed executed by Mr.Vittal Naidu in favour of Mrs. Mahila in 1959 and the sale deed executed by Mrs. Mahila in their favour on 03.10.1982. 24. Being satisfied with the documents produced and recording “je;ij kfDf;F brl;oy; bkz;l; Mtz vz; 3214/1959 ,jd;go kDjhuh; fpuak; Mtz vz; 6788/82 ehs; 03/10/1982 go jhk;guk; rhh; gjptfk; fpuak;”, computer pattas bearing nos. RPT 662/2013/B2 and RPT 661/2013/B2 have been issued in their favour in respect of the subject property. We are hence satisfied that the issuance of computerized patta in 2014 by the DRO in favour of the private respondents was proper and after appreciation of materials.25. We now assess the claim of the appellant. To begin with, though the sale deed executed by Mrs.Mahila in favour of the appellant was presented in 2012, it was registered only in 2024. Hence for all intents and purposes, the claim of the appellant is based on a document that is just a year old. It is thus correct to state that the claim of the private respondents is far anterior to that of the appellant, stretching over four decades, with an interruption of about a year and a half. 26. The issue canvassed by the appellant is that impugned 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025proceedings dated 13.11.2024 constitute a review by the DRO of the proceedings dated 06.11.2012. We do not consider this a review at all. There have been critical intervening events between 06.11.2012 and the date when patta was restored in favour of the private respondents and these events cannot be eschewed. 27. We find nothing untoward in the order of the writ court dismissing the writ petition and holding the validity of the registered document would only have to tested before a competent court which observation, in our considered view, would apply only to the appellant, as we have found no infirmity in the grant of patta to the private respondents. 28. With this, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [A.S.M., J] [N.S., J] 24.06.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes ssm11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025To1.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Officer, Grand Souther Trunk Road, Chengalpattu, Venbakkam, Tamil Nadu – 600 311.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadaperi, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.3.The Tahsildar, Otteri, Vandaloor, Chennai – 600 048.12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1042 of 2025DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.andN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.ssmW.A.No.1042 of 202524.06.202513/13