BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.10.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.25764 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.22304 & 22305 of 2019 M.Manjanapetchi ...Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Madurai District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District. 3. The Thasildar, Tirumangalam, Madurai. 4. Veeranan 5. Pitchai @ Rakkammal 6. Jeyalakshmi 7. Saroja Devim 8. Baby Kamalam 9. Murugesan 10. Amutha 11. Ilangovan (R4 to R11 are Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 02.01.2020 made in WMP(MD)No.23072 of 2019) ...Respondents 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order Na.Ga.No.9944/2015/C3 dated 13.08.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue the patta in the name of petitioner for the S.No.424/4 and 424/5 Karadikkal Village, Madurai, to an extend of 9 acres 80 cents. For Petitioner : M/s.R.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.S.Kadarkarai for R6 to R11 No appearance for R4 R5-Expired ORDER An order dated 13.08.2015 of the Tashildar rejecting the petitioner's application for patta is challenged in this writ petition. 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the Chitta showing the name of the petitioner's husband during the pre UDR period. He also relies upon the impugned order, wherein it is recognised that in the pre UDR period, as regards fasli No.1384, the name of the petitioner's husband Mani Thevar, is recorded. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the rejection of 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the petitioner's request for patta is unjustified and that interference is warranted. 3.These contentions are refuted by learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 11. Learned counsel points out that the said respondents trace title through Nalliah Naidu and Rajalakshmi, who are the parents of the said respondents. He also points out that the District Revenue Officer's by an order dated 28.08.2002 cancelling the assignment in favour of the vendors of the petitioner's parents was set aside by this Court in the order dated 07.09.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.17178 of 2003. 4.On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that the cancellation of assignment and the consequential classification of the land as Government land/Tharisu is the basis of rejection of the petitioner's claim. The operative portion of the order is set out below:- “epycilik Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lj;jpy; gl;lh vz;.1056-y; Gy vz;.424/5-y; 2 Vf;fu; 90 nrd;l; (1.17.5 n`f;Nlu;) ,lkhdJ KUff;Nfhshu; kfs; gpr;ir (v) uhf;fk;khu; vd;gtuJ ngaupy; ,Ue;jij e.f.vz;.rp3/10648/34 ehs;25.01.1994-d;gb ey;iyah kidtp uh[nyl;Rkp vd;gtu; ngaupy; gl;lhkhWjy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. mjd;gpd;du;> crpyk;gl;b tUtha; Nfhl;lhl;rpau; mtu;fspd; eltbf;iffs; 2154/95 ehs; 03.08.1995-gbAk;> jpUkq;fyk; tl;lhl;rpau; mYtyf e.f.vz;.738/2002/rp3 ehs; 28.02.2002- d;gbAk; KUff;Nfhdhu; kfs; gpr;ir (v) uhf;fk;khs; 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis vd;gtuJ ngaupy; kWkhw;wk; nra;J cj;jputplg;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk;> epge;jid kPwpajhy;> kJiu khtl;l tUtha; mYtyu; mtu;fspd; eltbf;iffs; e.f.vz;. 127146/96/J1 ehs;:28.08.2002-d;gb xg;gil ,uj;J nra;ag;gl;L muR jPu;it Vw;gl;l Gwk;Gfyhf khw;wk; nra;ag;gl;lJ. (jhYfh mYtyf e.f.vz;.4899/2000/rp3). ,t;thW khWjy; nra;ag;gl;l epykhdJ ,d;Wtiu jpuit Vw;gl;l muR Gwk;Gyfhf ,Ue;J tUfpwJ. jupR epykhfTk; cs;sJ. kDjhuu; kw;Wk; NtW egu;fspd; mDgj;jpy; Nkw;gb epyk; ,y;iy. vdNt> Nkw;gb gl;lh vz;fspy; cs;s Gyq;fshdJ jw;NghJ muR jPu;it Vw;gl;l Gwk;Gfyhf cs;sjhYk;> jupR epykhfTk;> ahUila mDgtj;jpy; ,y;yhky; cs;sjhYk;> kDjhuu; jpUkjp.vk;.kQ;rzg;Ngr;rp vd;gtu; gl;lh toq;ff; Nfhup kD nra;Js;s kDf;fs; js;Sgb nra;ag;gLfpwJ vd;gij ,jd; %yk; kDjhuUf;F njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.” 5.In the light of the material change in circumstances by way of the cancellation of assignment being set aside by the order referred to earlier, the basis on which the petitioner's application for patta was rejected does not survive any longer. From the pleadings and documents placed on record by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner's claim is based on the pre UDR revenue records. The authority to determine whether an error occurred during the UDR period has been conferred on the District Revenue Officer. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by granting leave to the petitioner to approach the District Revenue Officer in relation to the alleged UDR error. If the petitioner 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis submits a representation in such regard before the District Revenue Officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer shall consider and dispose of the same on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the private respondents herein and any other persons who would be affected by such order. Such proceedings shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 22.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J. RJR To 1. The District Collector, Madurai District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District. 3. The Thasildar, Tirumangalam, Madurai. W.P.(MD)No.25764 of 2019 22.10.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis