Madras High Court
Tamil Selvi vs The District Collector on 21 November, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P(MD)No.4531 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)No.3251 of 2025
Tamil Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani Sub-Division,
Palani Taluk,
Dindigul District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Oddanchathiram Taluk,
Dindigul District.
4. Karuppanan
5. Thangavel
6. Seenivasan
7. Selvaraj ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
entire records pertaining to the Impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.12383/2022/AA6 dated 27.12.2024 and quash the same as illegal and
ultra vires, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the Patta in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 07:05:36 pm )
Patta No. 180 at Thangachiammapatti Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul
District in the petitioner father's name Singakuduban and pass any other
direction deemed fit to the fact and circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Ramasiva
For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramani
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
Mr.D.Venkatesh
for R4 to R7
ORDER
The petitioner had filed W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2023 before this Court to direct the official respondents therein not to include the names of the private respondents herein in patta No.180. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing the District Collector to consider the request and pass orders thereon. The order impugned herein was issued pursuant to the said order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property of an extent of 1 acre and 7 cents in S.No.254/1 was originally owned by Karupaiyammal and Paramakuduban. Later, Paramakuduban made an oral relinquishment in favour of Karupaiyammal. Thereafter, Karupaiyammal made a settlement in favour of his brother Singakuduban, who is the petitioner's father. By relying on settlement deed bearing document No.1896 of 2008, dated 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 07:05:36 pm ) 25.11.1980, the petitioner obtained patta in respect of the property. In those circumstances, learned counsel submits that the District Collector should not have determined title by concluding that the settlement deed is not valid. He submits that the jurisdiction to determine title claims is vested only in the competent civil court and not in the District Collector.
3. In response to this contention, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the pre-UDR record stood in the name of Paramakuduban and Karuppayee in respect of S.No.254/1B. During the UDR period, it was erroneously recorded in the name of Singakuduban. Therefore, the private respondents had approached the District Revenue Officer seeking correction of UDR errors. On account of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, eventually the District Collector examined the matter and concluded that there was an UDR error. Hence, learned counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the mutation.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the District Collector has examined the pre-UDR documents and found that the 1978 10(1) chitta records the names of Paramakuduban and Karupayee as the pattadhars for S.No. 254/1B. The District Collector also noticed that the UDR 'A' Register recorded 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 07:05:36 pm ) the name of Singakuduban in respect of the said survey number. While examining whether the pre-UDR pattadhars had duly conveyed the property to the UDR pattadhar, the District Collector recorded the following findings:-
“Nkw;gb> fpiua Mtzj;jpd;gb fpiuak; ngw;w nrhj;ij ,UtUk; ghfg;gpuptpid vJTk; nra;J nfhs;shj epiyapy;> ,uz;lhtJ fpiuajhuhd jpU.fzgjpf;FLk;gd; kfs; fUg;ghap vd;gtu; kl;Lk;> jdf;F Rahu;[pjkhf ghj;jpag;gl;l nrhj;J vd;W njuptpj;J> Gyvz;.254/1-y; 1 vf;fu; 07 nrd;l; cs;s Gd;nra; epyk; KOtijAk;> ngupah FLk;gd; kfd; rq;ff;FLk;gd; vd;gtUf;F jhdnrl;by;nkd;l; nfhLj;Js;shu;. vd;w tpguk; rku;g;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s Mtzq;fspd;gb njupa tUfpwJ.
,e;Neu;tpy;> jpU.gukf;FLk;gd;> fUg;ghap Mfpa ,UtUk; jq;fSf;Fs; ve;jtpjkhd ghfg;gpuptpid Mtzq;fSk; Vw;gLj;jpf; nfhs;shj epiyapy; fUg;ghap vd;gtuhy; kl;Lk; jdf;F Rahu;[pjkhf ghj;jpag;gl;l nrhj;J njuptpj;J jhd jhdnrl;by; nkd;l; Mtz vz;. 1896/1980> ehs;:25.11.1980 ,d;gb ngupahf;FLk;gd; kfd; rq;ff;FLk;gd; vd;gtUf;F jhd nrl;by; nkz;l; Mtzk; nfhLj;Js;sJ Vw;Gilajd;W vd;Nw fUj Ntz;bAs;sJ.
NkYk;> kDjhuu; jpUkjp. jkpo;r;nry;tp vd;gtupd; jug;gpy; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;s thJiuapy; ghfg;gpuptpid Mtz vz;.1177/1966> ehs; 02.09.1966 ,d;gb vjpu;kDjhuu; gukf;FLk;gd; kw;Wk; mtuJ rNfhjuu; jpUkf;FLk;gd; tifawhtpduhy; jq;fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l nrhj;Jf;fis ghfg;gpuptpid nra;J nfhz;Ls;sjhfTk;
njuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy; Nkw;gb jq;fr;rpak;khgl;b fpuhkk;> Gyvz;.254/1,y; fpiua Mtz vz;.2538/1942> ehs;:12.11.1942 ,d;gb fpiuak; ngw;w nrhj;Jf;fs;
fpiuajhuu;fshd gukf;FLk;gd;> fUg;ghkp MfpNahUf;fpilNa ghfg;gpuptpid VJk; nra;ag;glhj epiyapy;> gukf;FLk;gd; vd;gtuhy; kl;Lk; ghfg;gpuptpid nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;w kDjhuupd; $w;W Vw;Gilajd;W vd;Nw fUj ,aYfpwJ.
,e;Neu;tpy;> Nkw;gb jq;fr;rpak;khgl;b fpuhkk;> Gyvz;.254/1B-y; 0.39.0 n`f;Nlu;];f;F 96 nrd;l; cs;s Gd;nra; epyk;> epy clikg;gjpT Nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpw;F Ke;ija 1388 Mk; grypapy; 1978-k; Mz;bw;fhd 10 1 rpl;lhtpy;> gukf;FLk;gd; kw;Wk; fUg;ghap Mfpa ,Utu; ngaupYk;> $l;lhfg; gl;lh jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ.” 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 07:05:36 pm )
5. As is noticeable from the above extracts, the District Collector noticed that Karupaiyammal being one of the two pre-UDR pattadhars, had settled the property in favour of Singakuduban. After noticing that this could not have been done in the absence of a partition between the two owners, the District Collector restored the revenue records to the status prevailing during the pre UDR period by recognising it as an UDR error. I find no infirmity in the decision of the District Collector warranting interference under Article 226. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. The Tashildar is directed to ensure that the order of the District Collector is strictly complied with. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
21.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RJR To
1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani Sub-Division, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.
3. The Tahsildar, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 07:05:36 pm ) SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
RJR W.P(MD)No.4531 of 2025 21.11.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 07:05:36 pm )