← Library
Madras High CourtWP/21010/2019disposed of with direction

K.R.Shaligram v. The Tahsildar

2025-09-15Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND WMP NO. 20190, 20196 OF 2019, 32684 OF 2019 and 34068 OF 2023 K.R.Shaligram Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Tahsildar O/o.Tahsildar Office No.1 Rajiv Gandhi Salai, 1st Cross Street, Sholinganallur Chennai-600 119.

2.The Sub Registrar O/o.sub Registrar Office, No.72, 2nd Street, Neelangarai, Chennai-600 041 3.R.Usha 4.R.Ragini 5.Arun Kondamani 6.K M K Achuth 7.K.Dalla Ram Respondent(s)

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to conduct a thorough enquiry proceedings based on the Letter dated 10/04/2019 and thereafter issue the Patta in favour of the real owners after affording opportunity of oral and personal hearing to the Petitioner as well as the legal Owners. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.J.Balachander For Respondent(s):

Mr.T.I.Ramanathan R3 Mr.T.M.Rajangam, GA RR1 & 2 RR4 to 6 - No appearance R3 - NRN

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st Respondent to conduct a thorough enquiry proceedings based on the Letter dated 10/04/2019 and thereafter issue the Patta in favour of the real owners after affording opportunity of oral and personal hearing to the Petitioner as well as the legal Owners.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the one of the legal heir of one Ramachar, who has purchased 16.37 of Agriculture land from several vendors through various documents. Such being the position, one Dallaram has created a forged deed of sale dated 30.09.1974 with respect to the Ramachar land and applied for fresh patta. In the meantime, the petitioner's father Ramachar died in the year 2007. Therefore, the petitioner has made a

application before the first respondent requesting not to issue fresh patta in favour of Dallaram as he is not the real owner and the same was not considered. Hence, the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner's representation will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.04.2019 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the private respondents including the impleading petitioners, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

M.DHANDAPANI J.

rli

7. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15-09-2025 rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Tahsildar O/o.Tahsildar Office No.1 Rajiv Gandhi Salai, 1st Cross Street, Sholinganallur Chennai-600 119 2.The Sub Registrar O/o.sub Registrar Office No.72, 2nd Street, Neelangarai Chennai-600 041 15.09.2025