R.Sundarasamy v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI R.Sundarasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

3.K.Rajamani, IAS, 4.Durai Ravi Chandran 5.Suresh 6.Ravi 7.Arulmurugan ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 17.12.2020 and to take action against the erring officials in accordance with law. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha for R1 and R2 Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 17.12.2020 and to take action against the erring officials in accordance with law.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's daughter was married to one A.P.Muruganandan in the year 2009 and out of love and affection, the petitioner settled a portion of his self acquired properties in favour of his daughter vide partition deed dated 04.11.2009 in document no.3977/2009 on the file of SRO, Madukarai and the petitioner continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner's daughter died on 11.03.2014. After her demise, the said A.P.Muruganandan influenced the private respondents and obtained legal heirship certificate as though he is the only legal heir of the petitioner's daughter, by stating that his wife's parents died, inorder to grab the properties settled by the petitioner in favour of the petitioner's daughter and on the basis of 2/4

the legal heir certificate got transfer of patta. Hence, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking to take action against the erring officials, however, there is no response. 3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that it is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and his son in law, which has to be ventilated only before the competent civil forum.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.It is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and his son in law, which has to be ventilated only before the competent civil forum and mere issuance of patta will not confer any title over the property. Hence, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance against his son in law, before the competent civil Court in the manner known to law. This writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 18.09.2025 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No 3/4

NCC: Yes/ No M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri To 1.The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

18.09.2025 4/4