Yesu vs the District Collector

YESU vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 26, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1432187

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1432187
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose
Decided On: Mar 26, 2026
Case Number: WP/10497/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

YESU

Respondent

The District Collector

Excerpt

.....2nd respondent to issue udr patta in name of the petitioner within the time frame to be fixed by this honble court. for petitioner(s): mr.d.rameshkumar for respondent(s): mr.c.jayaprakash govt.advocate for r1 to r5 r6 & 7 -notice dispensed withorderthis writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request for cancellation of udr patta issued in the name of respondents 6 and 7 for the property, morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition on the ground that the second respondent cannot accede to the petitioner’s request since the second respondent is bound by the civil court judgment rendered in o.s. no.5/1994 which enables respondents 6 and 7 to get udr patta in their names.2.mr.c.jayaprakash, learned government advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. since no adverse orders are being passed against respondents 6 and 7, notice to respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with by this court.3.as seen from the impugned proceedings, the civil court judgmentmakes it clear that respondents 6 and 7 are entitled for issuance of udr patta since the civil court has declared them to be the owners of the subject property.4.though the petitioner may contend before this court that he was not a party to the civil court judgment, the revenue authorities are certainly bound by the civil court judgment unless and until the same is set aside by the competent appellate court. therefore, the question of entertaining the petitioner’s request for cancellation of udr patta issued in favour of respondents 6 and 7 by the revenue authorities does not arise. this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.5.the petitioner contends before this court that he became aware of the civil court judgment only through the impugned proceedings. therefore, this court is of the considered view that liberty will have be granted to the petitioner to approach the civil.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 10497 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 11355 OF 2026 Yesu Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector
District collectorate office, Krishnagiri 2.The District Revenue officer DRO Office, Collectorate Building, Krishnagiri district 3.The Revenue divisional officer RDO Office, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri 4.The Tahsildar Taluk office, Krishnagiri , Krishnagiri 5.The Village Administrative officer Jagatap Revenue Village, Kaveripattinam Union, Krishnagiri 6.Thangaraj 7.Sakunthala Respondent(s)
PRAYER call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 17/04/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu.No. 30730/ 2023/ J1 rejecting to cancel UDR patta issued in name of the 6th and 7th respondents for the ancestral subject property owned by the petitioner comprised in Survey no. 92/2 situate at Jagatap Revenue Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and district admeasuring an extent of 0.05.5 hectares of agricultural land and consequentially to direct the 2nd respondent to issue UDR patta in name of the petitioner within the time frame to be fixed by this Honble court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Rameshkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Jayaprakash Govt.Advocate For R1 to R5 R6 & 7 -notice dispensed with

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request for cancellation of UDR patta issued in the name of respondents 6 and 7 for the property, morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition on the ground that the second respondent cannot accede to the petitioner’s request since the second respondent is bound by the civil court judgment rendered in O.S. No.5/1994 which enables respondents 6 and 7 to get UDR patta in their names.

2.Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. Since no adverse orders are being passed against respondents 6 and 7, notice to respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with by this Court.

3.As seen from the impugned proceedings, the Civil Court judgment

makes it clear that respondents 6 and 7 are entitled for issuance of UDR patta since the Civil Court has declared them to be the owners of the subject property.

4.Though the petitioner may contend before this Court that he was not a party to the Civil Court judgment, the revenue authorities are certainly bound by the Civil Court judgment unless and until the same is set aside by the competent appellate Court. Therefore, the question of entertaining the petitioner’s request for cancellation of UDR patta issued in favour of respondents 6 and 7 by the revenue authorities does not arise. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

5.The petitioner contends before this Court that he became aware of the civil court judgment only through the impugned proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that liberty will have be granted to the petitioner to approach the civil court to enable the petitioner to file appropriate legal proceedings seeking to set aside the Civil Court judgment passed in favour of respondents 6 and 7.

6.Without interfering with the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the purpose of setting aside the civil court judgment obtained by respondents 6 and 7 based on which UDR patta was issued in their favour by the revenue authorities. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. No costs.

26-03-2026 vga To

1. The District Collector

District collectorate office, Krishnagiri 2.The District Revenue officer DRO Office, Collectorate Building, Krishnagiri district 3.The Revenue divisional officer RDO Office, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri 4.The Tahsildar Taluk office, Krishnagiri , Krishnagiri 5.The Village Administrative officer Jagatap Revenue Village, Kaveripattinam Union, Krishnagiri

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J. vga AND WMP NO. 11355 OF 2026 26-03-2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties YESU vs The District Collector Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose