R.Balachandran vs The District Collector
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010647932025}
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.11658 of 2025
R.Balachandran
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector
Thiruchirappalli,
Thiruchirappalli District.
2. The Revenue District Officer
Srirangam,
Thiruchirappalli District.
3. The Thasildar
Marungapuri,
Thiruchirappalli District.
4. C.Palanisamy
..Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent
vide proceedings in Moo.Mu.Aa/2404/2024 dated 08.05.2025 and
quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner :Mr. R.Karthic Rajan
For Respondents :Mr.P.Sathish Kumar
Government Advocate (Civil)
For R1 to R3
Mr.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi
For R4
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
2. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari,
rd
challenging the impugned order passed by the 3 respondent vide
proceedings in Moo.Mu.Aa/2404/2024 dated 08.05.2025.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
4th respondent herein had initially instituted a suit against the
petitioner before the competent Civil Court, seeking a declaration,
mandatory injunction and recovery of possession from the petitioner.
The said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated
th
23.11.2022, as against which the 4 respondent preferred an appeal.
th
While the appeal was pending, on a memo filed by the 4 respondent,
the appeal suit was dismissed as not pressed by the Appellate Court
on 29.01.2025.
4. Thereafter, upon an application made by the 4th respondent,
rd
the 3 respondent herein had entered into the title dispute and
rendered a finding contrary to the findings of the Civil Court. Despite
th
noting that the appeal filed by the 4 respondent had also been
rd
withdrawn, the 3 respondent proceeded to cancel the patta standing
in the name of the petitioner's predecessor and directed the issuance
th
of patta in favour of the 4 respondent.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
5. He would further submit that, having failed to obtain a
th
declaration of title before the competent Civil Court, the 4
respondent had approached the 3rd respondent seeking mutation of
rd
the revenue records in his favour. That apart, the 3 respondent,
having been aware of the civil proceedings, ought to have refrained
th
from proceeding with the claim made by the 4 respondent and
should have directed him to await the outcome of the civil
proceedings.
rd
6. He would further submit that, in the counter affidavit, the 3
respondent had averred that there was no civil dispute between the
parties for him to consider, despite having noted the pendency of the
appeal before the Appellate Court. He would submit that, even in the
absence of any pending civil dispute, when the petitioner raised a
counterclaim with regard to the title to the property, it was incumbent
rd
upon the 3 respondent to refer the parties to the Civil Court. Hence,
he would pray that this Court set aside the order impugned herein.
7. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for
th th
the 4 respondent would submit that the 4 respondent had
rd
substantiated his title before the 3 respondent and that it was only
on that basis that the patta had been mutated in his favour. That
apart, he would submit that an appeal remedy is available before the
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
nd
2 respondent against the order impugned herein. Without
exhausting the said appellate remedy, the petitioner had approached
this Court and, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.
8. He would further, by pointing out the judgment and decree,
submit that even the petitioner had been held to have not
substantiated his title to the property and, therefore, he would also
not be entitled to have the patta retained in his name. Hence, he
would submit that the Writ Petition does not warrant consideration on
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side
and have perused the materials available on record.
10. It has been repeatedly held that when disputes with regard
to the title to a property are raised in patta proceedings, it would be
appropriate for the authority to direct the parties to approach the
competent Civil Court to redress their disputes. The impugned order
th
clearly refers to a pending appeal suit, which the 4 respondent had
rd
undertaken before the 3 respondent to withdraw, pursuant to which
the impugned order came to be passed. The said appeal suit, as noted
rd
by the 3 respondent, arises out of the judgment and decree whereby
the relief of declaration of title to the property was refused by the
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
competent Civil Court.
11. When that be so, the impugned order records a conclusive
th
finding that the 4 respondent is entitled to patta on the ground that
he had substantiated his title to the property. Such a finding recorded
rd
by the 3 respondent runs contrary to the well-considered judgment
and decree of the competent Court. Such a finding would amount to
sitting in appeal over the judgment of a competent Civil Court. For all
these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
12. That apart, as stated supra, when a dispute with regard to
title has been raised, the authorities cannot proceed to adjudicate the
same, as they have no jurisdiction to do so. Such disputes can only be
resolved by the competent Civil Court in the manner known to law.
13.For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be
interfered with. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the
impugned order dated 08.05.2025 is .
set aside
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
NSR
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
To:
1. The District Collector
Thiruchirappalli
Thiruchirappalli District
2. The Revenue District Officer
Srirangam
Thiruchirappalli District
3. The Thasildar
Marungapuri
Thiruchirappalli District
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
NSR
WP(MD) No. 15426 of 2025
05-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 11:47:53 am )