W.P.No.32999 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.12.2025 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.No. 32999 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos. 37020 & 37023 of 2025 C.Rama Reddy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District – 635 109. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned order “g/K/24412/2023/n$2” dated 28.07.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent in connection with the petitioner’s patta claim for dry lands in S.No.70 and S.No.71 measuring to an total extend of Acre 2.18 cents, Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32999 of 2025 situated at Jogikalasamanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Mohandoss for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate ***** ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s request for issuance of patta in his name for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition. 2. The petitioner’s request for issuance of patta has been rejected on the ground that the property has been classified as ‘Vari poromboke’. The petitioner disputes the same as seen from the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. According to him, his forefathers were issued with Ryotwari patta in the year 1939 and thereafter, he and others are in possession of the said property by Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32999 of 2025 paying taxes. However, the same has been disputed by the respondents as seen from the counter filed before this Court, wherein they have categorically stated that the land in question is classified as ‘Vari poromboke’ and therefore, the question of granting patta in favour of the petitioner does not arise. The respondents have also stated in the counter that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject lands. Since the land in question has been classified as ‘Vari poromboke’, the question of interfering with the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s request for issuance of patta does not arise. The only remedy if at all available to the petitioner is to approach the civil court seeking for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. Since there are disputed questions of fact involved, the question of interfering with the impugned order by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not arise. 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a civil suit, if so advised, seeking declaration to Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32999 of 2025 declare that the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, is absolutely owned by him. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 01.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp To 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District – 635 109. Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32999 of 2025 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. sp W.P.No. 32999 of 202 5 Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32999 of 2025 01.12.2025 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis