Muthuraman v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

1.Muthuraman ... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.19584/2026

2.Sureshkumar ... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.19585/2026

2.Durairaju ... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.19586/2026 Vs

¶1The District Collector, O/o the District Collectorate Campus,

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi.

¶3The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk Office,

¶4The Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality,

¶5The Chairman, Paramakudimunicipality, ... Respondents (in all Wps) COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to forbearing the 4th and 5th Respondent from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyments of the petitioners own plot land situated in town survey No. 2/3A (Plot Nos.4, 5) ward F block 1 to an extent of 1215, 1200 and 1215 Sq.ft. respectively, in Kattuparamakudi Group and Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on petitioners representations dated 18.05.2026 and 17.06.2026 and pass such further or other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstance of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Balasubramanian (in all Wps) For Respondents : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff (R1 to R3) Counsel for State : Mr.M.Kannan (R4) Standing Counsel (in all WPs) COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents 4 and 5 from in any manner interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plot lands situated in Town Survey No.2/3A (Plot No.4), Ward 'F', Block No.1, at Kattuparamakudi Group and Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, except by following the due process of law, based on the petitioners' representations dated 18.05.2026 and 17.06.2026.

¶2Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property, having purchased the same from their respective vendors. The vendors, in turn, had purchased the property from one K.S.D. Rajendran, who claimed title through the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam. Pursuant to the purchase, the petitioners were put in possession of the property and patta was also transferred in their favour. However, the fourth respondent interfered with the petitioners' peaceful possession on the ground that the subject land is Government land. Aggrieved by the said interference, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶4Per contra, the learned Counsel for the State appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that K.S.D. Rajendran, claiming title to the subject property through the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam, had earlier instituted O.S. No.37 of 1989 before the competent Civil Court. The suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21.03.1994. Challenging the findings rendered by the Trial Court, the State preferred A.S. (MD) Nos.161 and 162 of 2014 before this Court. By a common judgment dated 17.11.2021, this Court allowed the appeals. Thus, the issue relating to the title over the subject property has already been adjudicated and has attained finality. Consequently, the same cannot be reopened in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6It is not in dispute that the petitioners claim title to the subject property through one Boominathan who purchased the property from K.S.D.Rajendran, who, in turn, traced his title to the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam. It is also not in dispute that the very same claim of title had earlier been adjudicated before the competent Civil Court in O.S. No.37 of 1989, which came to be decided by judgment dated 21.03.1994. The matter was thereafter carried in appeal before this Court in A.S. (MD) Nos.161 and 162 of 2014, and by a common judgment dated 17.11.2021, this Court allowed the appeals. Thus, the issue relating to the title over the subject property has already been adjudicated by the competent Court and has attained finality. A writ proceeding is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of disputed questions of title, particularly when the issue has already been conclusively decided by the competent Civil Court and affirmed in appellate proceedings. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no mandamus, as sought for by the petitioners, can be issued.

¶7For the foregoing reasons, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No PKN To

¶1The District Collector, O/o the District Collectorate Campus,

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi.

¶3The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk Office,

¶4The Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality,

¶5The Chairman, Paramakudimunicipality,

M.DHANDAPANI, J. PKN

13.07.2026