P.Siddhumari v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY P.Siddhumari ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector Erode District.

2. District Revenue Officer Erode District.

3. The Head Quarters Tahsildar Anthiyur, Erode District.

4. Sundara @ P.Sundaram

5. J.Siddhumari

6. J.Sivakumar ... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 12.04.2025 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.Chandrasekaran.P For Respondent : Mrs.S.Indhu Bala, AGP for R1 to R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025.

2. Mrs.S.Indhu Bala, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the petitioner filed an application before the Revenue District Officer, requesting him to include her name along with the names of the 5th and 6th respondents in the patta of the subject property. After conducting the enquiry, the said application was allowed by the RDO vide order dated 31.03.2012. Aggrieved over the said order, an 2/6

appeal was preferred by the respondents 5 & 6 before the DRO. However, the said appeal was rejected and vide order dated 10.01.2014, whereby the parties were directed to file a civil suit. Pursuant to the said order, a suit was filed in OS.No.390 of 2011 by the respondents 5 & 6, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2016, against which, A.S.No.71 of 2016 was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2021. Under these circumstances, the online applications were filed by the petitioner requesting the respondents to include his name in the patta of the subject property. However, the said applications were rejected. Hence, a physical representation was made by the petitioner on 12.04.2025 before the 1st respondent. However, the same was not considered till date. Hence, this writ petition.

5. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would request this Court to grant 4 weeks time to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 3/6

Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, the petitioner is the joint owner of the subject property and hence, he made an application to include his name in the patta of the said property. The said aspect was accepted by the RDO vide proceedings dated 31.03.2012, which was confirmed at various levels of litigation. Under these circumstances, a representation was made by the petitioner on 12.04.2025 before the 1st respondent for issuance of patta for the subject property including his name. However, the same was not considered till date.

8. In view of the above, this Court directs the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.

4/6

12.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa To

1. The District Collector Erode District.

2. District Revenue Officer Erode District.

3. The Head Quarters Tahsildar Anthiyur, Erode District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 12.09.2025 6/6