W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :24.09.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.9706, 9707 & 12891 of 2025 Ramkumar ... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Executive Officer, Kamuthi Selecion Grade Panchayat, Ramanathapuram District. 3. Valavanthan 4. Vijayaleela 5. Chandarasekar 6. Palanikumar 7. Selvamani 8. Rajkumar 9. Palanisamy 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 10. Sankar 11. Rajeshkannan 12. Jeyakumar 13. Muthu Chokkalingam 14. Yogeshewaran 15. Thanabal 16. Jeevanatham 17. Shanthi 18. Deivajothy 19. Vasanthkumar 20. Vivek 21. Mukunthan 22. Rajadeepan Gopiprasath 23. Solai Pandiyan 24. Seenivasan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent dated 24.10.2024 in Ni.Mu.P5/46892/2021(P11) and consequential impugned order of the second respondent dated 11.04.2025 in Na.Ka.No.A2/269/2024 and quash the same as illegal and 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 consequentially direct the first respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of S.No.616/7. For Petitioner : Mr. J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman for R8 to R16, R21, R22 & R24 No appearance for R3 to R7, R17 to R20 & R23 O R D E R The petitioner had applied to the District Revenue Officer on 24.09.2021 claiming that UDR errors were committed and requesting for restoration of the status prevailing in the settlement 'A' register that preceded the UDR records. The said request was rejected by an order dated 24.10.2024, which is impugned herein. The consequential order of the second respondent dated 11.04.2025 granting permission to the respondent No.24 to put up a layout consisting of 36 plots is also challenged. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the settlement 'A' register and the SLR register to contend that the said documents reflect 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 the name of P.Perumal Nadar, son of Perumal Nadar. By relying on a genealogy chart, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the descendant of Ayya Nadar. He further submits that a partition was effected between the three sons of P.Sivasankara Nadar in the year 1917 and that the said sons were Shivshankara Nadar, Ayya Nadar and Ramasamy Nadar. By referring to a sale deed bearing document No. 557/1930, which is relied on by learned counsel for respondents 8 to 16, 21, 22 and 24, he submits that the vendor Valavanda Nadar had acquired the property from Narayana Nadar's son, Perumal Nadar. Consequently, he submits that the said Perumal Nadar could not have been P.Perumal Nadar and should be N.Perumal Nadar. 3. In these circumstances, learned counsel contends that the District Revenue Officer should have restored the status that prevailed in the settlement 'A' register and not merely directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader responded to these contentions by pointing out the relief requested for by the petitioner 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 before the District Revenue Officer. By referring to the petitioner's petition before the District Revenue Officer, he points out that the petitioner had challenged, inter alia, the sale deed bearing document No. 1050/2015. Therefore, he submits that the District Revenue Officer concluded that the parties should approach the jurisdictional civil court. He also points out that several civil suits are pending in relation to the subject property and that references are made to these civil suits in the documents filed by the private respondents herein before the District Revenue Officer. He drew a specific reference to the civil suits mentioned in Sl.Nos.8 and 15 to 18. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 16, 21, 22 and 24 contended that the said respondents trace their title from a sale deed executed on 01.06.1930 by Valavanda Nadar. In effect, his contention is that the private respondents also trace their title to documents that preceded the UDR. As regards the claim of the petitioner, learned counsel contends that there is no evidence that the petitioner is a descendant of P.Perumal Nadar. He further contends that these issues can only be adjudicated by a competent civil court and not by the District Revenue 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 Officer. By also pointing out that the petitioner approached the District Revenue Officer on 24.09.2021 and that several transactions relating to the subject property had been carried out prior thereto, he submits that the balance of convenience is not in favour of restoring the status as per the settlement 'A' register pending adjudication of the civil suits. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that a reasonable opportunity was provided to the rival claimants. The District Revenue Officer has considered the submissions and documents of the rival claimants and also the statement of the Village Administrative Officer and thereafter recorded findings on that basis. The operative portion of the said order is as under: “fKjp tl;lk; kw;Wk; tUtha; fpuhkg; Gyvz;. 616/7 tp];jPuzk; 2.125 Vu;]; epykhdJ gy;NtW cl;gpupTfSf;F cl;gLj;jg;gl;L fpiuaj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; gl;lh toq;fg;gl;Ls;sjhYk;> gy;NtW tpw;fpiuaq;fs; Vw;gLj;jg;gl;bUg;gjhYk;> vjpu;kDjhuuhy; rku;g;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s 1930> 1931-Mk; Mz;L kw;Wk; 1938-Mk; Mz;ila fpiua gj;jpuq;fs; Fwpj;J ,e;ePjpkd;wk; KbT nra;a ,ayhJ vd;gjhYk;> kDjhuu; kw;Wk; vjpu;kDjhu;fspd; cupik Fwpj;J jPu;T fhz Ntz;b ,Ug;gJ Cu;[pjkhfpwJ. 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 nrl;by;nkz;l; gl;lhjhuu; thupR njhlu;ghd rupahd Mtzq;fs; kDjhuuhy; rku;g;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. NkYk; nrl;by;nkz;l; gl;lhjhuu; kw;Wk; epy cilik Nkk;ghl;L jpl;l gl;lhjhuu;fspd; thupRfs; Fwpj;J ep&gzk; nra;a Ntz;b ,Ug;gjhYk;> kDjhuu; kw;Wk; vjpu;kDjhu;fspd; cupik Fwpj;J jPu;T fhz Ntz;bAs;sjhYk; rk;ke;jg;gl;l cupikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpd; %ykhf gupfhuk; Njbf; nfhs;sj; njuptpj;J ,jd; %yk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. kDjhuu;fspd; A.b.Mu;.Nky;KiwaPl;L kD js;Sgb nra;ag;gLfpwJ.” 7. The District Revenue Officer has noticed that the parties have relied upon documents executed in 1930, 1931 and 1938. Therefore, he has recorded that he cannot adjudicate on the title claims based on such documents. He has also recorded that the petitioner has not submitted documents to establish that he is a legal heir of the settlement pattadar. In these circumstances, the District Revenue Officer has directed that the matter be adjudicated by approaching the jurisdictional civil court. I find no infirmity in such conclusion, especially in light of the large number of civil suits already pending in relation to the subject property. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 8. The other aspect to be considered is whether the private respondents should be restrained from selling the plots pursuant to the order dated 11.04.2025. Learned counsel for the 24th respondent submits that about 18 plots were sold out of 36 plots. There is no documentary evidence in this regard. Nonetheless, it appears that some plots were sold pursuant to the grant of permission by the second respondent. At this distant point of time, on the basis of a request for correction in 2021, I am not inclined to continue the interim order. It is needless to say that the title of the purchasers of these plots will be subject to and will abide by the outcome of the civil proceedings. It would be appropriate for the 24th respondent to put such parties on notice before selling the plots to them. 9. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. NCS : Yes/No 24.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 To 1. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Executive Officer, Kamuthi Selecion Grade Panchayat, Ramanathapuram District. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J. apd ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 13481 of 2025 24.09.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis