VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

S.Sathishkumar v. The District Revenue Officer

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
24 February 2026
Bench
Abdul Quddhoseauthor
Case no.
WP 6975/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow Abdul Quddhose

Judgment

ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the sub-division of the property morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition, and issuance of patta No.2682, dated 04.08.2025, in favour of the third respondent.

¶2Admittedly, there is an alternate appellate remedy available to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2025 passed by the second respondent.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the court bundle stating that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South, as against the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2025 passed by the second respondent, and a direction may also be issued to the said authority to dispose of the appeal within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶4Since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South, is not a party respondent in this writ petition, this Court suo-motu impleads the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South, as party sixth respondent in this writ petition. Registry is directed to carry out the amendment accordingly. Page3 of 4

¶5Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 6.

¶6In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file an appeal as against the impugned proceedings dated

04.08.2025 passed by the second respondent before the sixth respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the appeal within the stipulated period, the sixth respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of the respondents 3 to 5, and any other party whom the sixth respondent deems fit to enquire, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 24-02-2026 RKM To

¶1The District Revenue officer collelctorate Building Coimbatore-641 018

¶2The Tahsildar Madukkarai Taluk Taluk office campus Anbu Nagar, Madukkarai Tamilnadu-641 105

¶3Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South. WPoNo.o6975oofo2026 ABDULoQUDDHOSE,oJ. RKM WPoNo.o6975oofo2026 24-02-2026 Page4oofo4

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE S.Sathishkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore-641 018 2. The Tahsildar Madukkarai Taluk Anbu Nagar, Madukkarai. 3. S.Sampathkumar 4. Sri Magesh Kunjuraman 5. Arun Nair 6. Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South. (R6 is suo-motu impleaded by this Court today) ..Respondent(s) Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Sub Division of Survey No.578 of Ettimadai village and issuance of patta No.2682 dated 4.8.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2025 in accordance with the law. For Petitioner(s): Ms.Deepika Murali For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Ravichander,SGP (R1 & R2) Page2 of 4

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.