Sun Street Solar Private Limited vs Revenue Divisional Officer
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 13.10.2026
DELIVERED ON: 04.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
CNR:{HCMD010899772023}
AND
WMP(MD) Nos. 16228 of 2023, 16230 of 2023, 17328 of 2023,
17418 of 2023 and 19212 of 2023
1. Sun Street Solar Private Limited
through its Authorized Signatory,
having office at No.401, 4th floor,
Shree Guru Harikrishnabhavan,
Charat Singh Colony,
A.K.Road, Andheri, East,
Mumbai, Maharastra-400 093.
Through its authorized signatory,
S.Palani,
S/o.Sampath,
Sharatha Pathmalaya Apartment,
4th Floor, T5 Flat, 10th Cross Street,
Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli
2. CSE Deccan Solar Private Limited
through its Authorized Signatory,
having office at No.401, 4th floor,
Shree Guru Harikrishnabhavan,
Charat Singh Colony,
A.K.Road, Andheri, East,
Mumbai, Maharastra-400 093.
Through its authorized signatory,
S.Palani,
S/o.Sampath,
Sharatha Pathmalaya Apartment,
4th Floor, T5 Flat, 10th Cross Street,
Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli
..Petitioners
__________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
Vs
1. Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirunelveli-627 009
2. Tahsildar
Manoor Taluk,
Tirunelveli District
3. N.Pasupathi
4. Vijayan
5. Chandran
6. Mottaiahsamy
7. N.Rajagopal
8. Selvam
9. Rajkumar
10. Sarjan Realities Private Limited
through its Senior Manager,
having office at C-20,
24th Cross Street, Maharaja Nagar,
Palayankottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District
11. Raju Spinning Mills Private Limited
through its Director,
No.1110B, Cotton Market,
Post Box Number 102,
Rajapalayam-626 117
12. Mark Data Power and Energy Limited
through its Director,
No.27, Nagarjuna Hills,
Punjagutta,
Hyderabad-500 082
13. Muthoot Fincorp Limited
through its Senior Manager,
Muthoot Centre,
Punnen Road,
Trivandrum-695 034
__________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
14.R. Chandrasekar
PA to District Collector,
Collectorate Building,
Madurai
..Respondents
PRAYER: 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 of the 1st respondent in the impugned
proceedings dated 28.06.2023 in Ni.Mu.A3/3428/2022 and quash the
same as illegal, wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and vitiated by
malafide exercise of power and further forbear the respondents 1 and
2 from mutating patta or direct them to restore patta in the name of
writ petitioners, as it was before the impugned order.
For Petitioners: Mr.Sathish Parasaran
Senior Counsel
For Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For Respondents: Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
Splecial Government Pleader
For R1 & R2
Mr.S.Vikram
For R3
Mr.C.Arasamuthu
For R4 & R5
Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar
For R6
Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
For M/s. Ajmal Associates
For R10
ORDER
W.M.P.(MD)No.16228 of 2023 is filed seeking for permission to
file a single writ petition, is accordingly.
ordered
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
__________
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
3. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
st
Mandamus challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1
respondent dated 28.06.2023 in Ni.Mu.A3/3428/2022 and further
forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from mutating patta or direct them to
restore patta in the name of writ petitioners, as it was before the
impugned order.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that, on an application made by respondents 3 to 5
nd
seeking mutation of patta, the patta issued by the 2 respondent was
st
cancelled by the 1 respondent, with a further direction to mutate the
revenue records in favour of all the legal heirs based on the legal heir
st
certificate and other registered documents. The 1 respondent had
also restrained the parties from creating any encumbrances over the
lands pending mutation of the revenue records.
5. He would contend that, even while passing the impugned
st
order, the 1 respondent had taken note of the various documents
executed in respect of the lands. Insptie of the existence of such title
nd
documents, based on which the patta had been transferred by the 2
st
respondent, the same had been set aside by the 1 respondent.
__________
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
6. He would further submit that, having noticed the dispute
with regard to the title of the properties among various parties, it
st
would have been appropriate for the 1 respondent to relegate the
parties to civil proceedings before the competent Court for
adjudication of their respective claims of title and thereafter proceed
further.
7. He would further submit that originally, a settlement deed
was executed by one Sankara Vadivammal, hereinafter referred to as
the settlor, in favour of the 7th respondent, and the same was
unilaterally cancelled by another registered document in the year
1970. He would submit that it is a well-established principle of law
that a transfer of title by way of a document cannot be unilaterally
cancelled by the executant of the document.
th
8. He would further submit that the 7 respondent had also
executed various documents in favour of third parties, including the
petitioners. The claim of respondents 3 to 5 was made only after a
th
lapse of three decades, particularly after the 7 respondent had
started dealing with the property. In that regard, he would submit
that respondents 3 to 5 are also not entitled to make any claim over
the property.
__________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
st
9. He would further submit that the conduct of the 1
respondent in passing the impugned order is in violation of the
provisions of the Rules framed under the Patta Pass Book Act, which
mandate that, whenever a dispute of title arises in patta proceedings,
the authorities ought to relegate the parties to the competent Civil
Court for resolution of their dispute, rather than adjudicating the
matter themselves. In this regard, he would also rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Edelweiss
Asset Construction Company Limited v. R.Perumalswamy and
others reported in (2021) 11 SCC 98.
10. Hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased to set aside
st
the order passed by the 1 respondent.
11. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel appearing
for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that, even though the
settlement deed was cancelled, the said cancellation has not been
challenged by the settlee. In that regard, he would contend that the
settlee is not entitled to further alienate the properties. He would
further submit that the documents subsequently executed are
fraudulent, sham and nominal documents, which do not confer any
title, and hence, no title would vest on the petitioners on the strength
of such documents.
__________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
12. Referring to the earlier civil proceedings between the parties,
th
he would submit that the 7 respondent had not challenged the
cancellation of the settlement deed under which the properties had
devolved upon him and had, instead, challenged only the cancellation
of the other settlement deeds, which was held to be invalid. In that
regard, he would submit that the deed of cancellation is valid and that
th
the subsequent alienations made by the 7 respondent, as the settlee,
on the strength of the settlement deed, which was subsequently
cancelled, are void documents and would not enure to the benefit of
any of the purchasers, including the petitioner.
13. In that regard, he would submit that the order passed by
the Revenue Divisional Officer directing cancellation of the patta
nd
issued by the 2 respondent and directing the authorities to
undertake the exercise of granting patta afresh does not warrant any
interference by this Court. Hence, he prays that this Court may be
pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition.
14. The learned counsel representing the villagers would submit
th
that the conduct of the 7 respondent in selling the property after
executing a gift deed in favour of the Government for a public purpose
th
would, by itself, demonstrate that the 7 respondent is attempting to
unjustly enrich himself by dealing with the property over which he
has no right. He would further submit that the order of the Revenue
__________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
Divisional Officer directing mutation of patta in favour of the
th
Government, based on the registered gift deed executed by the 7
respondent, does not suffer from any legal infirmity, including
arbitrariness. Therefore, he prays that, at least to that extent, the
impugned order may be upheld.
15. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the materials available on record.
16. A primordial contention has been raised that the impugned
order is in violation of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta
Pass Book Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). For
better appreciation, it would be appropriate to refer to the Rule 4,
which reads as follows:
“ 4. Procedure on receipt of application or
information.
(1) On receipt of the application or information, the
Tahsildar shall make an entry in the "Register of
Applications Received" in the order of receipt in Form III.
The Register shall be maintained village-wise.
(2) On the basis of the information furnished in the
application and as available in the existing land records or
obtained otherwise, the Tahsildar shall cause to be served
or despatched, under certificate of posting, to the persons
having interest on the land a notice in Form IV calling upon
them to make representation either orally, or in writing at
a specific place on a specified date which shall be not less
__________
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
than fifteen days and forty days later than the date of
receipt of the application or information.
(3) On the prescribed date, the Tahsildar shall
conduct a summary enquiry. At the enquiry, on
consideration of age, literacy and occupation, the
Tahsildar may permit an authorised agent of the owner to
appear on his behalf to supplement whatever the owner
has to state orally or in writing. No legal practitioner in his
professional capacity shall be allowed to represent any
party at such an enquiry. There shall not be adjournment
of the enquiry not more than twice and that adjournment
shall be granted only on application made by the parties
requesting for adjournment. Reasons for granting or
refusing the adjournment shall be recorded by the
Tahsildar in writing.
(4) In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that
a dispute concerning ownership of patta is already
pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which
impringe on personal laws or laws of succession and all
the parties interested do not agree on the ownership in
writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain
order on the ownership from a competent Civil Court
having jurisdiction before changing the entries as already
recorded and existing in the various revenue records.”
17. The aforesaid Rule provides for the procedure to be followed
by the authorities while conducting enquiries in respect of the entries
to be made in the patta, including mutation by way of transfer. Sub-
Rule (4), as extracted above, mandates that, if the authority is
satisfied that a dispute relating to ownership is already pending before
__________
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
a Court or is raised before it, the authority shall direct the parties
concerned to have their respective claims of title adjudicated by a
competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter and
thereafter make appropriate changes in the revenue records.
18. The revenue authorities are not vested with the jurisdiction
to adjudicate disputes relating to title. It is further to be seen that the
said Sub-Rule contemplates that all the parties to the proceedings
must agree in writing with regard to the ownership of the property. In
the event of rival claims of ownership, it is imperative upon the
authority to relegate the parties to the competent Civil Court for
adjudication of their respective claims.
19. The aforesaid provision has also been dealt with by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 98 .
20. In the present case, a thorough perusal of the impugned
order would indicate that the 1st respondent had taken note of the
rival claims of title to the properties based on the documents relied
upon by the respective parties. When that be so, the 1st respondent
ought to have refrained from entering into the merits of the dispute
and ought not to have set aside the entries made in the revenue
records/patta or directed mutation of the patta in favour of the
__________
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
Government in respect of a portion of the land and further directed
the 2nd respondent to undertake the exercise of granting patta based
on the legal heir certificate and other documents relied upon by the
authorities.
st
21. It is imperative that, upon noticing the dispute, the 1
respondent ought to have referred the parties to the competent Civil
Court for adjudication of their respective claims of ownership over the
properties.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition stands allowed
and the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 is . There shall be
set aside
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed .
23. Before parting with the case, the conscience of this Court is
st
shocked by the manner in which the 1 respondent has violated the
statutory Rules framed under the Patta Pass Book Act. The conduct of
the officer who passed the impugned order is deprecated, as such
violation of the statutory provisions would render him liable for
disciplinary action under the applicable provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants Conduct Rules, particularly Rule 20. In that
regard, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned for such
__________
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
violation.
24. Accordingly, this Court directs the Secretary to the
Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, to initiate disciplinary proceedings
under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules against the officer who passed the impugned order
dated 28.06.2023 and to report compliance with the same within a
period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Nsr
Note: Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the
Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, forthwith.
To:
1. Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirunelveli-627 009
2. Tahsildar
Manoor Taluk,
Tirunelveli District
3. Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirunelveli-627 009
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirunelveli - 627 009
__________
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Nsr
WP(MD) No. 19647 of 2023
04 -11-2026
__________
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:49:12 pm )