Judge krishnan Ramasamy /In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside. Patta No. 4333 dated 15.09.2018 stands cancelled, and the original patta issued in favour of the petitioner dated 12.07.2001 stands restored in its entirety. It is open to the private respondents to approach the Civil Court to adjudicate their rights. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. No. 33426/2022 is ordered, and W.M.P. No. 33427/2022 is closed. 23-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 33940 of 2022
AND WMP Nos. 33426 and 33427 OF 2022
S.Vasudevan
S/o.R.Subramani, No.108, Sulaivan Garden, Arani Road, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore-623 001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer
O/o. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District Taluk Office, District Collector Office, Thiruvannamalai-606 604.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Arani-632 301.
3. The Tahsildar
O/o. The Tahsildar, Arani Taluk Office, Arani-632 301.
4. K.Gunasekaran
S/o.Late R.Kalyanasundaram, No.126, Old
Cuddalore-Chitoor Road, Kannamangalam Village, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai-632 311.
5. K.Rajan
S/o.Late R.Kalyanasundaram, No.7A, Old
Cuddalore-Chitoor Road, Kannamangalam Village, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai-632 311.
6. K.Kannan
S/o.Late R.Kalyanasundaram, No.7A, Old
Cuddalore-Chitoor Road, Kannamangalam Village, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai-632 311.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 22.11.2022 in Sey. Mu. No. Aa2 / 609 / 2022 and quash the same and to consequentially direct the 1st respondent to cancel the Patta No.840 (Computerized Patta No.4333) issued in favour of the Respondents 4 to 6 and to direct the 2nd respondent to issue fresh Joint Patta in favour of the petitioner and the other coowners viz., Mr.S.Bhaskaran, Mr.S.Kumaran, Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Petitioner(s): Ms.Ramya Muralikumaran, for M/s.Mc Gan Law Firm
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran, Government counsel for R1 to
R3
Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.V.Law Associates for R4 to R6
Order
This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 22.11.2022, wherein the 1st respondent refused to cancel Patta No. 840
(Computerised Patta No. 4333) issued in favour of Respondents 4 to 6, and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh Joint Patta in favour of the petitioner and the other co-owners.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his grandfather, the late K. Ramamurthy Chettiar, had purchased land measuring an extent of 2.83 acres in S.F. Nos. 358/1 (measuring 2.33 acres) and 358/6 (measuring 0.50 acres) in Kannamangalam Village, Arani Taluk, Vellore District. While so, his grandfather, his paternal uncle R. Kalyanasundaram, and his father R. Subramani decided to partition the ancestral properties and entered into a registered Deed of Partition dated 25.10.1971. Under this deed, the ‘C’ Schedule properties were allotted to the share of the petitioner’s father, which included land measuring 1.83 acres out of the 2.33 acres in S.F. No. 358/1. Ever since the date of the partition, the said property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s father.
3. During the UDR Scheme, the land in S.F. No. 358/1 was subdivided into S.F. No. 358/1A1 (measuring 0.74 acres) and S.F. No. 358/1A2 (measuring 0.89 acres). Thereafter, the petitioner’s father executed a Deed of Settlement dated 10.03.2005, settling the properties measuring 0.89 acres in S.F. No. 358/1A2 jointly in favour of his children, including the petitioner. Later, via another Deed of Settlement dated 03.08.2012, he settled the remaining extent of land in S.F. No. 358/1A1, measuring 0.74 acres, in favour of his children. Ever since the date of settlement, the petitioner along with the co-owners have been in absolute joint possession.
4. When the petitioner and others approached the 3rd respondent for mutation of the survey numbers, they were shocked to find that Respondents 4 to 6, without any title over the property, had obtained Patta No. 840 by including S.F. No. 358/1A1 along with their other properties. After several requests to the revenue authorities to carry out the necessary corrections in Patta No. 840 and issue a fresh patta in their favour, the rectification was carried out by removing S.F. No. 358/1A1 from Patta No. 840. However, upon subsequent verification, it was found that fresh Patta No. 4333 had been granted again in favour of Respondents 4 to 6 on 15.09.2018 by including S.F. No. 358/1A1.
5. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the 1st respondent to cancel Patta No. 4333 in favour of Respondents 4 to 6 with respect to S.F. No. 358/1A1 (measuring 74 cents) and to issue a patta for the said survey number in favour of the petitioner. Since the representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 16947/2022, which this Court disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. Pursuant to this direction, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2022, rejecting the petitioner’s request for the grant of patta and the cancellation of the patta in favour of Respondents 4 to 6, and relegating the parties to work out their remedies before the Civil Court. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 to 6 submitted that prior to the registered Partition Deed dated 25.10.1971, an oral partition took place in the year 1971. In and by the oral partition, the subject property situated in S.F. No. 358/1A1, measuring 74 cents, was allotted to the father of the private respondents, and Patta No. 840 was mutated accordingly. Therefore, the oral partition came into force and was acted upon. On 25.10.1971, a registered Partition Deed was executed based on this oral partition. However, while drafting the Partition Deed, mistakes crept in without the knowledge of the parties, wrongly including land that did not belong to the family. Having noticed these mistakes, Respondents 4 to 6 changed the patta to the names of the respective parties to whom the properties were allotted as per the oral partition of 1971, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s request for cancellation of the patta is perfectly valid.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. Even if it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that an oralunderstanding took place before the registered partition, and that the land in question was allotted to the private respondents, there was no impediment on the part of the parties concerned—who were all signatories to the Partition Deed —to reduce the entitlements and the extents of the properties into writing within the Partition Deed itself. However, there is no record of any such oral partition.
As per the registered Partition Deed dated 25.10.1971 produced before this
Court, which was reduced to writing and registered, the property in S.F. No.
358/1 was allotted to the petitioner’s family. The execution of the said Partition Deed was also accepted by the private respondents. Subsequently, it appears that a separate patta was obtained by the petitioner on 12.07.2001, and the property was enjoyed up to 2012. But later, at the instigation of the private respondents, S.F. No. 358/1A1 was included, and Patta No. 840 was issued to them. While this was rectified, it appears that the subject survey number was subsequently re-included in the private respondents’ patta. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner requested the authorities to cancel the entry again and issue a fresh patta in their favour. Since this request was rejected, the petitioner is before this Court.
9. Contrary to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, if there was an oral partition, it should have been reduced to writing. As per the registered Partition Deed available before this Court, the petitioner’s family is entitled to
S.F. No. 358/1, which was subsequently subdivided into S.F. Nos. 358/1A1 and 358/1A2. Such being the case, If there was indeed any prior oral understanding that altered the landscape of the registered Partition Deed dated 25.10.1971, as alleged by the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent , the burden of proof lies heavily on the private respondents. They must approach a competent Civil Court to seek a declaration of title based on such an alleged oral partition and prove their claim over S.F. No. 358/1A1, measuring an extent of 74 cents. It is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.
10. The 3rd respondent failed to see that the private respondents had no prima facie documentary title to justify the inclusion of S.F. No. 358/1A1 into Patta No. 840 or the subsequent Computerised Patta No. 4333. When a patta is altered or mutated based on an error, misrepresentation, or without a valid source of title, the revenue official is duty-bound under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act to rectify the anomaly and restore the entries to their original, undisputed position. However, the 3rd respondent, without doing so, directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, the party claiming a right outside of the registered deed must approach the Civil Court to prove their title.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside. Patta No. 4333 dated 15.09.2018 stands cancelled, and the original patta issued in favour of the petitioner dated 12.07.2001 stands restored in its entirety. It is open to the private respondents to approach the Civil Court to adjudicate their rights. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. No.
33426/2022 is ordered, and W.M.P. No. 33427/2022 is closed.
23-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SK
To
1. The District Revenue Officer
O/o. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District Taluk Office, District Collector Office, Thiruvannamalai-606 604.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Arani-632 301.
3. The Tahsildar
O/o. The Tahsildar, Arani Taluk Office, Arani-632 301.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
sk
WP No. 33940 of 2022
AND
WMP NO. 33427 OF 2022
23-07-2026