BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY WP(MD) NO. 10724 of 2023 and WMP(MD)No.9441 of 2023 M.Karuppusamy Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Revenue Officer cum Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Collectorate Dindigul District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of Revenue Divisional Office Palani Post Dindigul District 3. The Thasildar Taluk Office Palani Post and Taluk Dindigul District 4. The Divisional Railway Manager Works Southern Railway Madurai. (R4 is Suo motu impleaded vide Court Order dated 21.06.2023 in WP(MD). 10724/2023) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Saravanakumar For Respondent(s): M/s.S.Jeya Priya, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.G. THALAIMUTHARASU Central Government Standing Counsel For R4 Prayer: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.no. 1191/2021/Aa6 dated 18.05.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to carry out the mistake entered in the Revenue Document in respect of the property comprised in Survey no. 32B/1 Thattankulam Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District and to issue patta in the petitioners name within a time stipulated by this Court. ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.no. 1191/2021/Aa6 dated 18.05.2022 and consequently, to direct the respondent to carry out the mistake entered in the Revenue Document in respect of the property comprised in Survey no. 32B/1 Thattankulam Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District and to issue patta in the petitioners name within a time stipulated by this Court. 2.At the time of admission, this Court suo motu impleaded the Divisional Railway Manager, Works, Southern Railway, Madurai, as 4th respondent. 3.The contention of the petitioner is that theSurvey no. 32B/1 belongs to one Subba Nayakkar. Thereafter, his son Subburaj Naidu inherited the property. The said Subburaj Naidu had sold the property to one Sadayappa Gounder through document No.1630 of 1951. Thereafter, the said Sadayappa Gounder sold the property to the petitioner's grandfather Kupuna Gounder through Document No.2597 of 1964. Thereafter, the said land is in the possession of the said Kupuna Gounder. The said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Kupuna Gounder was having two sons namely, Muthu Gounder and Mayilsami. The said Mayilsami had executed a release deed in favour of Muthu Goundar. Thereafter, Muthu Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the demise of the Muthu Gounder, his son Karuppusamy, who is the petitioner herein had inherited and is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner's family was in possession and enjoyment for the past five decades. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for issuance of patta. At that time, the 3rd respondent orally informed the petitioner that the Survey No.32B/1 is noted in the revenue records as Railway Road and the 3rd respondent declined to grant patta. 4.The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the said land does not belong to the Railways. 5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that even in the impugned order it has been recorded that the land does not belong to the Railways. If it is not a railway land, then it will be recorded as government land. Therefore, patta cannot be granted. 6.However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during UDR scheme, while updating the register, it has been wrongly entered as railway pathway. Therefore, he seeks to rectify the same. 7.After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Railway Department has stated that it does not belong to the Railways and the same has been concurred in the impugned order by the revenue officials. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder: "kJiu njd;dfuapy;Nt gphpT Nkyhsh; jdJ kJiu> njw;F ,uapy;Nt Nfhl;lg;nghwpahshpd; fbj vz;.U.W. 280/NOC/Land ehs;:20.1.2022 ehspl;l fbjj;jpy; jl;lhd;Fsj;jpw;F fl;Lg;gl;l Gy vz; 32B/1-epyk; uapy;Nt Jiwf;F nrhe;jkhdJ ,y;iy vdTk;> jkpof murpd; tUtha;j;Jiwf;F fl;Lg;gl;lJ vdTk; njhptpj;Js;shh;." When the Railways had stated it is not Railway land then the respondents cannot consider the same as government land. When the petitioner is tracing the title through sale deeds from 1917 onwards, it is acceptable that it cannot be a government land, but it is an individual land from 1917 onwards. Individuals were in possession and enjoyment of the said land and the mistake ought to have been committed during UDR scheme only. 8.Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider to rectify the UDR mistake. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner shall submit the relevant records before the 1st respondent and 1st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's claim in the light of the above observation and rectify the mistake and issue patta in the name of the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26-03-2026 Tmg To 1. The District Revenue Officer cum Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Collectorate Dindigul District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of Revenue Divisional Office Palani Post Dindigul District 3. The Thasildar Taluk Office Palani Post and Taluk Dindigul District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis