Madras High Court
Robert Rubin Raj vs The District Revenue Officer on 26 November, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
2025:MHC:2818
W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :26.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
and
WMP (MD) Nos.5763 and 5765 of 2025
Robert Rubin Raj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Revenue Tahsildar,
Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Revenue Inspector,
Mathur Subdivision,
Pudukkottai District.
4. The Village Administrative Officer,
Lakshmanan Patti Village,
Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
5. A. Singa Muthu ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to call for the
records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1 st respondent/ the
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
Pudukkottai District Revenue Officer in Ni.Mu.D3/2109227/2024 dated
07.02.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents
1 to 4 to retain the revenue records including Patta in respect of Sy.No.
105/1B and 105/1C (admeasuring 10 Acre 29 cents), Lakshmanan Patti
Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District in the name of the writ
petitioner in Patta No.1367.
For Petitioner :Mr.N.Dilipkumar
For Respondents :Mr.P.Thambidurai
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
Mr. B. Saravanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr. C.Gangaiamaran for R5
ORDER
The petitioner asserts that he purchased 3.25 hectares (8.02 acres) of land in Survey No.105/1B and 0.92 hectares (2 acres and 27 cents) in Survey No.105/1C from Mahesh Kumar and Tmt.Vasantha under a sale deed dated 14.07.2008, registered as Document No.3837 of 2008. Pursuant thereto, it is stated that Patta No.1367 was issued in the name of the petitioner. Because an adverse claim was made by T.P. Abdul Bashir and T.C. Harris in respect of 2 acres on the northern portion of the petitioner’s land in Survey No.105/1B, the petitioner states that he again purchased the said 2 acres from the said individuals by sale deed dated 24.10.2010, registered as Document No.4901 of 2010. According to the 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 petitioner, he became the bona fide owner of a total extent of 10 acres and 29 cents in Survey Nos.105/1B and 105/1C by virtue of these purchases.
2. After purchasing the land, the petitioner states that he intended to form an approved layout. In relation thereto, it is stated that the petitioner executed a gift deed dated 10.12.2012 in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu under Document No.2786 of 2012. The petitioner also states that the layout promoted by him received approval from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning under order dated 12.08.2022.
3. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner states that the fifth respondent filed an application on 23.09.2023 before the District Revenue Officer, after a delay of about five decades, seeking rectification of UDR errors, and that the order impugned herein was issued. At the time of admission, an interim stay was granted and the said order operates as on date.
3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 Counsel and their contentions
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kumar, assailed the interim order on multiple grounds. His first contention was that the fifth respondent did not establish his locus standi. Learned counsel contended that the District Revenue Officer is under an obligation to first verify whether the petitioner concerned has the locus standi to seek correction of the alleged UDR error.
5. His second contention was that the fifth respondent had approached the District Revenue Officer after an inordinate delay. While conceding that no period of limitation is prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.385 Revenue (General-3) Department dated 17.08.2004 (G.O. Ms. No.385), learned counsel submitted that a reasonable time should be implied even if a limitation period is not prescribed. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 705. 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
6. By referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 695 (Narsing Rao), particularly paragraphs 25 and 31 thereof, he submitted that even where there is no limitation period, the Supreme Court held that powers of revision should be exercised within a reasonable period. He also relied upon paragraph 37 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in North Eastern Chemicals Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd., (2023) 19 SCC 798 (North Eastern Chemicals), for the proposition that even where a limitation period is not prescribed, the court should undertake a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the nature of proceeding, the length of delay, the possibility of prejudice being caused and the scheme of the statute in question.
7. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that revenue authorities are not entitled to determine questions of title. By referring to the judgment of this Court in W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. v. The District Revenue Officer, (2016 SCC OnLine Mad 8958) (WS Industries), particularly paragraphs 29 and 37 thereof, learned counsel submitted that the Court concluded that questions related to title should 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 not be decided by the revenue officials. He also relied upon the said judgment in support of the proposition that powers under G.O. Ms. No. 385 should be exercised within a reasonable time. By referring to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. R. Perumalswamy, (2021) 11 SCC 98 (Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction), which is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal against the Division Bench judgment in WS Industries, learned counsel submitted that the order of the single judge of this Court in WS Industries was affirmed by setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench. Learned counsel placed reliance on paragraphs 19 to 22 of the said judgment, wherein the scope of G.O. Ms. No.385 was discussed.
8. Turning to the facts of the present case, learned counsel submitted that the property in question has been in the continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for the past 17 years and that all the revenue records stand in the petitioner's name. He also referred to the multiple conveyances leading to the purchase of the property by the petitioner. By virtue of the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the benefits of such conveyances and the lay-out approval have been denied to the petitioner.
6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
9. As regards the common order dated 19.03.2025 of this Court in K. Thangasamy and others v. The Additional Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, 2025:MHC:929 (Thangasamy), learned counsel submitted that this Court was conscious that delay and laches is a material factor to be considered as held in WS Industries. For all these reasons, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the revenue records maintained in the name of the petitioner.
10. In response, learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent, Mr. B.Saravanan, submitted that the fifth respondent was required to and duly established locus standi. In this regard, by referring to the genealogy tree, he pointed out that the fifth respondent/Singa Muthu is the grand son of the pre-UDR pattadhar, Singaram Pandurar. In order to establish this contention, he first referred to the legal heir certificate of Singaram Pandurar. After pointing out that the legal heirs of Singaram Pandurar were Logambal and Alagan, he relied on the death certificate and, particularly, the legal heir certificate of Alagan, to contend that the fifth 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 respondent is shown as one of the sons of Alagan. Hence, he submitted that the fifth respondent established locus standi before the District Revenue Officer.
11. Dealing next with limitation, he contended that G.O. Ms. No. 385 does not prescribe a period of limitation. By relying on the judgment of this Court in Thangasamy, particularly paragraph 19 thereof, he contended further that a period of limitation cannot be read into G.O. Ms. No.385 and that an application for correction of an alleged UDR error cannot be rejected on that ground. Even as regards laches, he contended that it was held therein that it does not foreclose the rights of land owners. He submitted further on this issue that revenue officials do not have the power to reject an application on the ground of laches.
12. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the scope of authority of the District Revenue Officer was dealt with in Thangasamy by concluding that the District Revenue Officer is the competent authority to correct errors that crept in during the UDR survey. Learned senior counsel also relied on paragraph 51 of the judgment of the 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidya Devi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725, to contend that the right to property being a constitutional right should be protected and should not be defeated merely on the ground of delay.
13. By referring to the impugned order, learned senior counsel submitted that the District Revenue Officer recognised the fact that one of the pre-UDR pattadhars, M.Singu, conveyed 1.57 acres to Krishnan. Because the said conveyance was from a pre-UDR pattadhar, he submitted that the said conveyance was not construed as an UDR error. He also added that the District Revenue Officer noticed that such purchase by Krishnan was limited to 1.57 acres and, therefore, interfered with the UDR records only with regard to the excess extent.
14. By contrast, with regard to the other UDR pattadhars, after noticing that there were no link documents, learned senior counsel submitted that the District Revenue Officer restored the status as per the pre-UDR records. In this regard, learned senior counsel submitted that this does have the effect of nullifying any of the conveyances made by 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 the UDR pattadhars and that parties should work out their remedies with regard thereto before the jurisdictional civil court. Discussion, analysis and conclusions
15. At the outset, a significant aspect should be noticed. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 385. Although G.O. Ms. No.385 has no statutory foundation and is an executive order, in the absence of a challenge to its validity, I proceed to interpret its scope and import on the assumption that it is valid.
Locus standi
16. Several issues arise for consideration in this case. The first aspect to be examined is whether the fifth respondent established locus standi. The pre-UDR records reflect the names of M.Singaram Pandurar and M. Singu @ Alagan Pandurar in the resettlement register. The petitioner has filed the legal heir certificate of Singaram Pandurar disclosing the names of Logambal and Alagan as the legal heirs. The fifth respondent asserts that he is the grandson of Singaram Pandur. In the legal heir certificate of Singaram Pandurar, he is described as the son of 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 Muthu Pandurar. On comparing this document with the particulars of the resettlement register, Singaram Pandurar is described as M. Singaram Pandurar, which is corroborative. The fifth respondent has also placed on record the legal heir certificate of Alagan, who was shown as one of the legal heirs of Singaram Pandurar. The legal heir certificate of Alagan discloses the names of four legal heirs, including Singamuthu Alagan, who is the fifth respondent and is described therein as one of the sons of Alagan. Therefore, the fifth respondent has satisfied the requirements of locus standi.
Limitation and laches
17. The next aspect to be considered is the delay in approaching the District Revenue Officer. It is common ground between the rival parties that the District Revenue Officer commenced the inquiry in the year 2023 to consider whether an UDR error was committed. The genesis of the updating of revenue records, which was carried out under a scheme for the Updating of Registry or UDR, may be traced to G.O. Ms. No.869, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 dated 30.09.1985. This document envisaged that the field work under the updating registry scheme was required to be completed on or before 30.09.1985. Eventually, the process continued for much longer and was only completed by about 1992. Many discrepancies were noticed later in the UDR records.
18. Originally, one of the tasks assigned to Zonal Deputy Tahsildars under serial number 23 of G.O. Ms. 921 Revenue dated 15.06.1991 was to rectify defects in the updating of registry cases. Based on recommendations from senior revenue officials, this authority was cancelled and instead vested in the District Revenue Officer under G.O. Ms. No.385 in August 2004 about 12 years after the updating of revenue records was completed. Thus, by its very nature, G.O. Ms. No.385 was intended to enable the rectification of errors that occurred at least twelve years earlier. Given such nature, a typical limitation period running from the date of cause of action could not have been introduced. What could have been done was to fix a three year period from the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No.385 for seeking rectification or, in the alternative, incorporate a sunset clause, i.e. prescribe that G.O. Ms. No.385 will remain in force only until a certain date and that any request for 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 rectification, if not made by then, would not be considered. Neither course of action was adopted. With this preamble, I turn to whether limitation or laches is applicable while considering petitions under G.O. Ms. No. 385.
19. On examining G.O. Ms. No.385, it is clear that no limitation period has been prescribed therein as held in Thangasamy and earlier in WS Industries. The follow-on question is: can a petition for correction of an UDR error be nonetheless rejected on the ground of laches? By way of illustration, although a period of limitation is not prescribed for the filing of a writ petition, High Courts have consistently rejected petitions filed belatedly on the ground of laches. The basis of such rejection has been that the petitioner has approached the court seeking discretionary public law remedies. Reference may be made, in this regard, to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347, and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar, AIR 2008 SC 3000. In the latter, it was held, in relevant part, as under:
24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonable possible opportunity.
Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
20. While limitation always has statutory basis and is, therefore, traceable to the Limitation Act, 1963 or other special statute prescribing the period of limitation, the provenance of the doctrine of laches is traceable to the exercise of equitable jurisdiction. Historically, in the United Kingdom, courts of law were empowered to grant legal remedies, such as damages for breach, whereas courts of equity (for example, Chancery Courts) could grant equitable relief, such as specific 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 performance. Later, these jurisdictions were merged.
21. Civil courts today consider actions for legal remedies, such as recovery of debt or damages, which are required to be granted if the plaintiff concerned establishes all elements of the cause of action even if such action was instituted with some delay. Put differently, when non- discretionary remedies are requested, unless the action is barred under the applicable statute of limitations, relief cannot be denied on the ground of delay unless acquiescence or estoppel is established. On the contrary, when the plaintiff seeks equitable relief, such as an injunction, it could be denied by a court of law on the ground of delay.
22. Because laches is an equitable doctrine, another crucial distinction between limitation and laches is that institution after the statute of limitations runs out is per se sufficient to justify rejection as regards limitation, whereas, both delay and prejudice as a result thereof should be established to succeed on the ground of laches. These principles were enunciated in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) LR 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 PC 221, which was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. N. Murugesan and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 895, wherein, in relevant part, it was held as under:
21. The word laches is derived from the French language meaning remissness and slackness . It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief. (emphasis added) Relatively more recently, the UK House of Lords in Fisher v. Brooker & others, MANU/UKHL/0061/2009, held that laches is an equitable doctrine under which delay can bar a claim to equitable relief .
23. In North Eastern Chemicals, which was cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court concluded that a reasonable time may be implied in the absence of a limitation period for filing an appeal under a statute, but that no straightjacket formula can be adopted to fix reasonable time. In Narsing Rao, which is another case cited by 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that a reasonable time may be implied for the exercise of suo motu powers of revision. In neither of these cases, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the nature of proceedings to which the doctrine of laches applies. Likewise, none of the other cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner leads to the conclusion that laches could be cited as a ground for refusal when equitable or discretionary jurisdiction is not invoked. Therefore, these cases do not advance the cause of the petitioner. Whether the District Revenue Officer is empowered to reject a petition for correction of an alleged UDR error on the ground of laches falls for consideration next.
24. As recorded at the outset of the discussion, the District Revenue Officer exercises power conferred by an executive order to correct UDR errors. While doing so, he does not exercise equitable or discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, if a party establishes that an UDR error occurred, the District Revenue Officer does not have the authority to decline relief on equitable considerations, including delay or laches. At the highest, the delay in filing the request may be a factor that may be borne in mind while deciding on ancillary directions in relation to the revenue records. This leads me to the scope of G.O. Ms. No.385. 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 Scope of G.O. Ms. No.385
25. As is evident on reading G.O. Ms. No.385, the District Revenue Officer has been empowered to examine as to whether an UDR error was committed. This entails the examination of pre-UDR records and a comparison of such records with the UDR records. Undoubtedly, it is possible that one or more of the pre-UDR pattadhars may have conveyed the property to the UDR pattadhars. It is also possible that the UDR pattadhars may be the legal heirs of the pre-UDR pattadhars, and may have succeeded either by way of succession or survivorship to the estate of the UDR pattadhars. It is even possible that the UDR pattadhars have purchased the relevant property from legal heirs of the pre-UDR pattadhars.
26. In order to verify whether the pre-UDR pattadhars or their legal heirs conveyed the property to the UDR pattadhars, where appropriate, it becomes necessary for the District Revenue Officer to examine title deeds, such as sale deeds, gift deeds, exchange deeds, 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 partition deeds and the like. Such scrutiny of title deeds cannot be construed as determination of title. Put differently, where appropriate, the task entrusted to the District Revenue Officer under G.O. Ms. No.385 cannot be performed without examining title documents to verify and ascertain the link, if any, between the pre-UDR pattadhars and the UDR pattadhars. While undertaking such exercise, however, the District Revenue Officer cannot decide on the validity of these instruments of conveyance. As long as the District Revenue Officer does not deviate from this limited mandate, it cannot be construed as an adjudication of title disputes in contravention of principles laid down in Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction and other cases. The other aspect to be examined is the interplay between the exercise of jurisdiction under G.O. Ms. No.385 and that exercised under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (the Patta Pass Book Act), which I consider next.
Interplay between G.O.Ms. No.385 and the Patta Passbook Act
27. As discussed above, the limited jurisdiction exercised under 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 G.O. Ms. No.385 is to inquire into and ascertain whether an error occurred during the UDR period. Upon inquiry, if the District Revenue Officer concludes that no error occurred during the UDR period, the authority of the District Revenue Officer under G.O. Ms. No.385 ends there. In other words, there may be disputes relating to transactions that took place in the period following the updating of records under the UDR scheme. Such matters do not fall within the remit of the District Revenue Officer under G.O. Ms. No.385. Indeed, there may even be disputes relating to the validity of a conveyance deed(s) under which the UDR pattadhars purchased the property from the pre-UDR pattadhars. These disputes do not relate to UDR errors. Consequently, if relating to title, parties should be directed to approach the jurisdictional civil court; and, if relating to revenue records in the post-UDR period, parties should be directed to seek recourse from the authorities under the Patta Pass Book Act.
28. Applications for issuance of patta or mutation of patta on the basis of subsequent events, such as sale by or death of the pattadhar or analogous events, not involving a challenge to the validity of the patta granted earlier may be made before the Tahsildar. Appeals against the 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 Tahsildar's orders lie before the Revenue Divisional Officer and revisions relating thereto, including on suo motu basis, fall within the jurisdiction of the District Revenue Officer. All such disputes are required to be adjudicated in terms of and in accordance with the Patta Pass Book Act and the rules framed thereunder, and not under G.O. Ms. No.385.
29. With this backdrop, I turn to the facts of the present case. The District Revenue Officer examined the pre-UDR resettlement documents and noticed that the pattadhars were M.Singaram Pandurar and M.Singu alias Alagan Pandurar. After examining title documents and the encumbrance certificate, except in respect of the conveyance of 1.57 acres by M.Singu in favour of Krishnan, it was noticed that there is no link between the pre-UDR pattadhars and the pattadhars under the UDR record. As regards Krishnan, it was also recorded that an excess extent was recorded in the name of Krishnan in the UDR record, and this was directed to be rectified. The said Krishnan has not challenged the order and the challenge has been made only by the petitioner, who traces title through Mookaiya, M.Durai and M.Nagesh. Because the District Revenue Officer did not find any link between the said persons and the pre-UDR pattadhars, the pattas issued to persons who purchased the 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 property by tracing title from the above-mentioned three UDR pattadhars were cancelled and the revenue records were restored in the names of Singaram Pandurar and M.Singu.
30. Undoubtedly, the exercise of this jurisdiction in the year 2025, which is several decades after the UDR scheme was introduced, has caused considerable hardship to persons who purchased the property from the UDR pattadhars, including the petitioner. However, the approach adopted by the District Revenue Officer with regard to ascertaining whether there was an UDR error cannot be faulted given the scope and ambit of G.O. Ms. No.385.
31. Having said that, I find that the District Revenue Officer has travelled beyond his remit in examining certain aspects, such as the approval obtained by the petitioner from the development authorities in relation to the layout promoted by him. The findings recorded in this regard at inter alia paragraph 15 at internal page 18 of the order cannot be sustained. As discussed earlier, the scope and ambit of G.O. Ms. No. 385 is limited and the District Revenue Officer should stop with 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025 ascertaining and recording whether there is an UDR error and, if so, issue directions to rectify such error. The validity or otherwise of conveyances or approvals obtained by subsequent pattadhars is required to be examined by the jurisdictional civil courts or the High Court and not under G.O. Ms. No.385.
32. For reasons aforesaid, I conclude that interference is not warranted with the order restoring the revenue records to the pre-UDR status by incorporating the names of M.Singaram Pandurar and M.Singu. This will, however, not per se have any impact on the validity of conveyances effected either in favour of the petitioner or other parties, and disputes relating thereto have to be adjudicated in the jurisdictional civil courts. Given the lapse of time and the third party interests created in favour of the petitioner and various others, it is just and appropriate that the Tahsildar be restrained from permitting any further mutations of the revenue records relating to Survey No. 105 until these disputes are adjudicated by the jurisdictional civil courts. This order will not, therefore, stand in the way of the petitioner, the fifth respondent or any other affected party from approaching the jurisdictional civil courts for relief.
23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
33. Before drawing the curtain, I must mention that G.O. Ms. No. 385 was issued on 17.08.2004 and about 21 years have elapsed. Notwithstanding its limited scope, given the unsettling effect that the exercise of jurisdiction under this order has after the lapse of several decades, it is appropriate that the Government considers incorporating a sunset clause.
34. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.11.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
PKN
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Revenue Tahsildar,
Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Revenue Inspector,
Mathur Subdivision,
Pudukkottai District.
4. The Village Administrative Officer,
Lakshmanan Patti Village,
Kulathur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN
W.P.(MD)No.7616 of 2025
26.11.2025
26/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 08:42:56 pm )