Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging the mutation of records in the Town Survey Register by the revenue authorities. The petitioner claimed that the patta for the subject property, situated in Thanthoni, Karur Taluk, Karur District, had previously been mutated in his name and his sister's name based on the Will of their grandmother. Subsequently, the revenue authorities, specifically the Special Tahsildar (Town Survey), without issuing any notice to the petitioner, removed his name from the records and included the name of the sixth respondent. The petitioner contended that the documents through which the sixth respondent claimed rights were based on an alleged power of attorney. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned entry and to restore his name in the Town Survey Register. The court heard arguments from the counsel for the petitioner, the Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents, and the counsel for the sixth respondent. The available portion of the order does not contain the court's decision or reasoning, as the text ends abruptly while narrating the petitioner's case.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mutation entry in the Town Survey Register without notice to the petitioner violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed; Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his name in the Town Survey Register.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 255
Mr.Gokul Raj, Mr.B.Saravanan, Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya
1. The District Collector, Karur; 2. The Special Tahsildar, Town Survey, Karur; 3. The Tahsildar, Karur; 4. G.Rajammal; 5. Nandakumar; 6. Veerasamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging mutation entry in Town Survey Register
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the entry of the sixth respondent's name in the Town Survey Register and direct restoration of the petitioner's name in the revenue records.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's name was removed from revenue records and the sixth respondent's name was entered without notice, based on an alleged power of attorney, while petitioner claims ownership through his grandmother's Will.
Issues
Whether the impugned mutation entry in the Town Survey Register without notice to the petitioner violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the patta had been mutated in his name and his sister's name based on the Will of their grandmother, and that the revenue authorities subsequently mutated the records by removing his name and including the sixth respondent without notice, and that the documents in favour of the sixth respondent were based on an alleged power of attorney.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner challenges the mutation of records by the second respondent by including the name of the sixth respondent.
Without notice to the petitioner, the revenue records have been mutated by removing the name of the petitioner and including the name of the sixth respondent.
Procedural History
Writ petition filed under Article 226; on 11.03.2025, court heard counsel for petitioner, Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, and counsel for sixth respondent; order pronounced on the same day.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
