Chandrakumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Chandrakumar Son of Devaraj No.2/X3 Sithanaickenpalayam Sellakarichal, Sulur Taluk Coimbatore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Udumalpet Tiruppur District

2. The Tahsildar Maduthukulam Tiruppur District

3. The Firaka Surveyor Thungavi Maduthukulam Taluk Tiruppur District ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 in file No.2026/ 0105/32/ 010300 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently

direct respondent no.2, 3 to survey and subdivide the petitioner property comprising in survey number 187/4B situated at Metrathi village, Madathukulam taluk, Tirupur district within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Myilsamy For Respondent(s):

Mrs.Inthu Karunakaran Government Counsel

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 passed in File No. 2026/0105/32/010300 on the file of the 2nd respondent, to quash the same, and consequently direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to survey, sub-divide, and issue separate patta for the petitioner's property comprised in Survey No. 187/4B, situated at Metrathi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District, within a stipulated time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of a validly registered sale deed, and the 2nd respondent has also issued a possession certificate in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submitted an online application seeking a separate

sub-division and patta transfer after conducting a field survey. However, the 2nd respondent mechanically rejected the said application on the sole ground that there exists a boundary dispute. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent without conducting a proper field enquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing, and that the same is a cryptic, non-speaking order. Therefore, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, with a direction to pass appropriate orders after issuing due notice to all the parties concerned.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the

petitioner to put forth his case, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. Consequently, this Court inclines to remand the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration, and the matter is accordingly remitted back to the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the counter-parties/adjacent landowners, if any, and affording them an opportunity of a personal hearing. The second respondent shall pass a reasoned speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, by taking into consideration all the relevant materials placed on record, and thereafter effect the survey, sub-division, and patta transfer, if it is otherwise in order, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

30-06-2026 Asi

To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Udumalpet Tiruppur District

4. The Tahsildar Maduthukulam Tiruppur District

5. The Firaka Surveyor Thungavi Maduthukulam Taluk Tiruppur District

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

Asi 30-06-2026