The District Collector, v. Pachaiyappas Trust Board,

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.) About 206 acres of punja land in Agani Village, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District, the patta which stands in the name of Sri Sabanayagar Trustee, Pachaiyappa Mudaliar Dharma Paripalanam, Chennai, was by mistake mutated in favour of Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga. The land commonly known and identified as Tenagudi Estate during the settlement process been erroneously mutated in the name of Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga, which has prompted the Pachaiyappa Trust Board to file W.P.No.36939 of 2024 seeking writ of mandamus to rectify the mistake in the revenue records and to restore the name of the petitioner, viz., Pachaiyappa's Trust Board.

¶2The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the records, disposed of the writ petition by directing the authorities to correct the entries as per the report of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 31.03.1968, by incorporating the name of Pachaiyappa's Trust Board, Madras, as pattadhars represented by Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram. Page Nos.2/5

¶3The District Collector, who is the 1st respondent in the writ petition has preferred an intra-court appeal contending that the revenue records categorically show the name of the landholders as Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram. Therefore, according to him, the patta already in the name of the Temple does not require any further mutation in favour of Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram represented by Pachaiyappa's Trust Board.

¶4Though the above submission superficially appears to be correct but on examination of the records shows that the patta been wrongly mutated in the name of Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple Dharga, and the suffix "Dharga" is the issue in this case and not who represents the Trust. The Settlement Tahsildar, as early as 1968, on perusal of the records, found that the subject land belongs to Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram represented by Pachaiyappa's Trust Board. While so, the learned Single Judge, after proper appreciation of the records has passed the order directing the authorities to mutate the record as prayed in the writ petition.

¶5Moreover, it is seen from the pleadings and the representation made by the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/1st respondent that rectification of records has already been carried out. Page Nos.3/5

¶6In view of the above, nothing survives in this appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (N.MALA, J.) 09-06-2026 Index :Yes/No. :Yes/No. bsm Page Nos.4/5 Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN J. AND N.MALA J. bsm W.A.No.1392 of 2026

09-06-2026 Page Nos.5/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-06-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA W.A.No.1392 of 2026 1. The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District Mayiladuthurai - 609 001. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sirkali Revenue Division, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluk, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District. … Appellants Vs. Pachaiyappa's Trust Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Pachaiyappa's College Campus, Chennai -600 030. … Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 made in W.P.No.36939 of 2024 and allow the above Writ Appeal. For Appellants: Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, AAG., Assisted by Mr.B.Sivakollapan, GA For Respondent: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian Page Nos.1/5