High Court · 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 24.11.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYW.P(MD)No.29648 of 2024andW.M.P(MD)No.25029 of 2024S.Krishnan ... PetitionerVs1. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District,Sivagangai.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karaikudi Taluk,Sivagangai District,Sivagangai.3. The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk,Sivagangai District.4. Dr.Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust, Through its Manager,Alagappapuram,Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned Order in Pa.Mu,B4/61291/2023 dated 17.10.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and further directing the Respondents to issue patta to the petitioner for land measuring 17.50 cents in S.No.25/1B, Chekkalakottai Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner: M/s.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocatefor R1 to R3 Mr.J.Anandkumar for R4 ORDERThe petitioner had applied for patta in respect of 17.5 cents in S.No.25/ 1B. The said request was rejected by order dated 17.10.2024. The order of the District Revenue Officer is challenged in this writ petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased 17.5 cents from one Meyappan Ambalam under sale deed dated 24.03.1979. He, however, acknowledges that the said sale deed referred to S.No.25/1A and not to S.No.25/1B. Later, he states that the 4th respondent herein filed O.S.No.118 of 1984 and obtained a judgment and decree dated 18.07.1990 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Subsequently, the petitioner remained in possession of the 17.5 cents in spite of the said judgment and decree. In the year 1998, the 4th respondent filed a second suit in O.S. No.89 of 1998. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 03.07.2004. An appeal was filed in A.S.No.92 of 2005 and the said appeal was allowed by 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis judgment and decree dated 19.04.2006. The last suit being O.S.No.9 of 2010 was filed thereafter for recovery of possession. This suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018. By relying on the said judgment and decree, particularly paragraph 17 thereof, learned counsel contends that the petitioner has perfected title over the 17.5 cents in his possession by adverse possession. Although the 4th respondent has challenged the judgment and decree by filing a first appeal, learned counsel submits that no interim order has been obtained by the 4th respondent. Therefore, by virtue of the judgement and decree, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of patta for the 17.5 cents. Learned counsel relies on Section 7 of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and points out that it enables a person who acquires title to a property by a decree or order of a Court to communicate the same to the Tahsildar and request for a patta on that basis. For the above reasons, learned counsel submits that the conclusion of the District Revenue Officer that the petitioner's request for patta cannot be accepted is erroneous and calls for interference. 3. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent refuted these contentions. By virtue of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.118 of 1984, learned counsel submits that the petitioner's title and right in respect of the relevant property 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was declared by the jurisdictional civil court. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not initiate action for recovery of possession within the limitation period, learned counsel contends that the declaratory relief cannot be nullified by the petitioner continuing in possession of the relevant property. Put differently, his contention is that the findings in O.S.No.9 of 2010 cannot be relied upon to establish the petitioner's title or entitlement for a patta. 4. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits further that the petitioner had asserted a claim in respect of the relevant property on the basis of sale deed dated 24.03.1979 and not on the basis of adverse possession. He submits that the petitioner has adopted a contradictory stand while prosecuting the present petition. He also contends that limitation does not extinguish the right, but only bars the remedy. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the District Revenue Officer focused on whether there was an UDR error. At internal page 11 of the impugned order, the following findings were recorded after examining the pre-UDR and UDR records.“Ab.Mu;. jpl;lj;jpd; Kd;du; kDjhuNuh> mtUf;F fpiuak; nfhLj;j nka;ag;gd; mk;gyk; jug;gpdNuh ,e;j Mjhuj;ij mbg;gilahff; nfhz;L nrl;by;nkz;l; gjpTfspd; kPJ murhy; toq;fg;gl;bUe;j fhyf; nfLTf;Fs; 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Nky;KiwaPL gupfhuk; Njbf; fz;bUf;f Ntz;Lk;. nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtzq;fspYk; Ab.Mu;. Mtzq;fspYk; jhthg; Gyk; mofg;gr; nrl;bahu; fhNy[; ngaupy; gl;lh epykhfj; jhf;fyhfpAs;sjhy; ,jid Ab.Mu;.jpl;lj;jpy; Vw;gl;l jtwhf fUj ,ayhJ.”6. In effect, the conclusion is that the name of the Alagappa Chettiar College was recorded both in the settlement registers and in the UDR records. On that basis, the District Revenue Officer entered the finding that there is no UDR error. 7. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to title by adverse possession, the District Revenue Officer took note of O.S.No.9 of 2010 at internal page 9 of the order. Thereafter, he entered a finding that no declaratory decree was issued in favour of the petitioner in the said judgment and decree. The relevant finding is set out below:-“Mdhy;> Nkw;fhZk; khz;gik ePjpkd;w tof;fpy; jhth Gyk; gpujpthjp v.v];.fpU~;zd; vd;gtUf;F nrhe;jkhdJ vd tpsk;Gif gupfhuk; VJk; toq;fg;gltpy;iy.”5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. As is noticeable from the above, the District Revenue Officer proceeded on the basis that a person can claim title by adverse possession only by filing a suit and obtaining a decree to that effect. This conclusion cannot be countenanced because adverse possession was earlier used only as a shield and not as a sword. Although this position has changed today, the fact remains that adverse possession is more commonly used as a shield rather than as a sword. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner did not apply for and obtain a declaratory decree in respect of title is erroneous. 9. The 4th respondent has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018 and such appeal is said to be pending before the first appellate court. Therefore, notwithstanding the above conclusion that the rejection of the petitioner's request on the ground that the petitioner did not apply for and obtain a declaratory decree is erroneous, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner awaits the outcome of the pending first appeal. If the petitioner were to succeed by dismissal of the appeal, the revenue officials shall consider the petitioner's request for grant of patta on the basis of adverse possession, as evidenced by findings in O.S.No.9 of 2010. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order of the District Revenue Officer to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 24.11.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoRJRTo1. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District,Sivagangai.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karaikudi Taluk,Sivagangai District,Sivagangai.3. The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk,Sivagangai District.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.RJRW.P(MD)No.29648 of 202424.11.20258/8