Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the entry of the sixth respondent's name in the Town Survey Register for T.S.Nos.1620, 1621, and 1622 in Thanthoni, Karur Taluk, Karur District, and to restore the petitioner's name. The petitioner claimed that patta had been mutated in his and his sister's names based on their grandmother's Will, but the revenue authorities, specifically the second respondent, had subsequently removed the petitioner's name and included the sixth respondent's name without any notice. The petitioner further alleged that the documents favoring the sixth respondent were based on an alleged power of attorney. The matter came up for hearing before Justice P.B. Balaji. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, and the counsel for the sixth respondent were heard. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the court’s final decision, reasoning, or operative directions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether mutation of Town Survey Register entries without notice and in disregard of existing patta based on a Will is valid
Law Points
- Mutation of revenue records in Town Survey Register without notice violates principles of natural justice
- remedy of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226
- title claims based on Will versus power of attorney
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 256
W.P.(MD)No.4201 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4347 & 4348 of 2018
Mr.Gokul Raj for petitioner; Mr.B.Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3; Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya for sixth respondent
1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur; 2.The Special Tahsildar, Town Survey, Karur District, Karur; 3.The Tahsildar, Karur, Karur District; 4.G.Rajammal; 5.Nandakumar; 6.Veerasamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the mutation of revenue records by including the name of the sixth respondent without notice, and seeking to quash the entry and restore the petitioner's name in the Town Survey Register.
Remedy Sought
To call for records relating to the impugned entry of the sixth respondent's name in Town Survey Register in T.S.No.1620, 1621 and 1622 and quash the same, and direct the sixth respondent to restore the petitioner's name.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's patta had been mutated based on grandmother's Will, but the records were changed without notice to include the sixth respondent 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.
patta had already been mutated in the petitioner's name and his sister's name based on the Will of his grandmother. 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.
