Puttammal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Order This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2021 passed by the first respondent ordering for grant of patta in the name of respondents 5 to 7. Page3 of 6

2.The petitioners have challenged the impugned proceedings on the ground that the Civil Court decree obtained by the private respondents has been obtained against a dead person and therefore, the said decree is a nullity. According to the petitioners, the official respondents ought not to have relied upon the decree, which is a nullity for the purpose of passing the impugned order.

3.The contention of the petitioners has been disputed by the private respondents as well as the official respondents in this writ petition as seen from the respective counters filed before this Court.

4.It is an admitted fact that a suit has been filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.446 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Hosur seeking to declare the decree obtained by the private respondents based on which the impugned proceedings came to be passed as a nullity. The said suit is still pending consideration by the Civil Court. At this juncture, when there is no finding rendered by the competent civil court that the decree obtained by the private respondents is a nullity, the question of interfering with the impugned proceedings does not arise. However, the interest of the petitioner as well as the private respondents, pending disposal of the civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the decree obtained by the private respondents as a nullity has to be protected. Page4 of 6

5.Considering the nature of the dispute between the parties, this Court, to protect the interest of the petitioner as well as the private respondents, passes the following order: a)The petitioners as well as the private respondents shall maintain status quo with regard to further mutation of revenue records of the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition till the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.446 of 2022 filed by the petitioners on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Hosur seeking to declare the decree obtained by the private respondents as a nullity; b)This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective contentions of the respective parties; c)The Civil Court shall dispose of the suit in O.S. No.446 of 2022 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the first respondent in the impugned proceedings and independently decide the suit, based on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the respective parties in the said suit.

6.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. 10-02-2026 VGA Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur Division, Krishnagiri District.

¶2The Tahsildar Dhenkani Kottai Taluk, Hosur Division, Krishnagiri District.

¶3The Sub Registrar Kelamangalam Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri District.

¶4The Inspector of Police Snti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Krishnagiri,Krishnagiri District. . WPoNo.o4845oofo2021 ABDULoQUDDHOSEoJ. VGA WPoNo.o4845oofo2021oANDoWMPoNos.5459,o5461, 5462,o5463,o20431,o20434,o20436o&o20437oOFo2021 10-02-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 4845 of 2021 AND WMP Nos.5459, 5461, 5462, 5463, 20431, 20434, 20436 & 20437 OF 2021 1. Puttammal 2. Sivanandha 3. Manjula 4. Suresh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur Division, Krishnagiri District. 2. The Tahsildar Dhenkani Kottai Taluk, Hosur Division, Krishnagiri District. 3. The Sub Registrar Kelamangalam Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri District. 4. The Inspector of Police Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Krishnagiri,Krishnagiri District. Page2 of 6 5. H.N.Suryanarayanappa 6. Thimma Raja 7. Kalyana Raja ..Respondent(s) Calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2021 issued in PA.MU.3758/ 2020/ B3 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same in so far as the land in survey No.239/ 1 is concerned and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 herein to restore the Revenue Records in the name of the Petitioners herein. For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.B.Madhura for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Jayaprakash Govt Advocate For R1 to R3 Mr.R.Venkatesa Perumal Govt Advocate(Crl.Side) For R4 Ms.A.L.Ganthimathi Senior Counsel for Mr. L. Palanimuthu For R5 to R7