← Library
Madras High CourtWP/28205/2024disposed of

J.Mahalingam v. The District Collector

2025-12-11Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

1. J.Mahalingam Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu603 001.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Tambaram, Chennai- 45.

3.The Tahsildar Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai- 45.

4.The Village Administrative Officer Perungalathur Village, Perungalathur, Chennai- 63.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Directing the respondents to cancel the pata No.1880, relating to S.no.389/1A1A1, situate at Perungalathur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, measuring an extent of 1.38.83 Hectares, Standing in the names of Karuppasamy Thevar, Muthusamy Thevar and Chithirai, by considering the Petitioners representation dated 05.01.2024 within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Honble court.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr S.Thangavel For Respondent(s):

Mr C. Jayaprakash

Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to cancel the patta No.1880 relating to the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2024 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. This Court by its order dated 27.09.2024 recorded the fact that since the petitioner is seeking for cancellation of patta issued in the names of Karuppasamy Thevar, Muthusamy Thevar and Chithrai, but they have not been arrayed as party respondents in this writ petition, granted time for the petitioner to take steps to implead the aforesaid parties as party respondents in this writ petition. But, till date, the impleading petition to that extent has not been filed.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on verification is has been learnt that the aforementioned parties viz., Karuppasamy Thevar, Muthusamy Thevar and Chithrai have all sold their respective properties and they are also no more. In view of the same, he would submit that it would be suffice if the petitioner's representation seeking for cancellation of patta is considered on merits and in accordance with law by the second respondent.

4. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner's representation is considered on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the objections of any third parties whom the second respondent deems fit to enquire.

5. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2024 seeking for cancellation of the patta No.1880 relating to the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition after hearing the objections of the parties whom the second respondent deems fit to enquire within in a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.

11-12-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab

To 1.The District Collector Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu603 001.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Tambaram, Chennai- 45.

3.The Tahsildar Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai- 45.

4.The Village Administrative Officer Perungalathur Village, Perungalathur, Chennai- 63.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

11-12-2025