Selvaraj vs District Revenue Officer And Others

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J

An order dated 07.11.2025 of the District Revenue Officer confirming the earlier order dated 14.07.2025 of the Revenue Divisional Officer is challenged herein.

By relying on a sketch of survey No.391, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is in occupation of land in Survey No.391/1B2B. In support of his contention, he relies upon the statement of the Village Administrative Officer as recorded in the impugned order of the District Revenue Officer. He also submits that the status of revenue records should not be altered on the basis of the order of the District Revenue Officer in favour of the third respondent.

Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. He submits that the District Revenue Officer recognised the fact that O.S.No.863 of 2025 is pending and therefore restored the revenue records in the name of Sangili Devar, subject to the outcome of the civil suit. He submits that the said position would be maintained.

On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the District Revenue Officer was conscious of the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent, which is pending adjudication in O.S.No.863 of 2025. Therefore, by clarifying that the order would be subject to the outcome of such suit, the revenue records were restored in the name of Sangili Devar, the original pattadar. I see no reason to interfere except to the extent of clarifying that the revenue officials shall not effect any further mutation and shall await the outcome of the civil suit.

This Writ Petition is disposed of on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.