V.Ravikumar v. The Tahsildar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY V.Ravikumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Tahsildar, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

... Respondent Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to dispose within time frame the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2025 seeking joint patta in the name of the petitioner and his siblings with respect to the Grama Natham property situated at Perumbakkam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District comprised in Old Survey No.272/11 New Survey No.555/20 extending to 14 cents in total.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate 1/6

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent herein to dispose within time frame the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2025 seeking joint patta in the name of the petitioner and his siblings with respect to the Grama Natham property situated at Perumbakkam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District comprised in Old Survey No.272/11 New Survey No.555/20 extending to 14 cents in total.

2. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's mother bought a property in Old Survey No.272/11, New Survey No.555/20 at Perumbakkam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District to an extent of 3 1/2 cents, whereas petitioner's father has also got property in the same survey number of same vilage to an extent of 10 1/2 cents. After their demise, the petitioner along with his siblings approached the 2/6

revenue authorities, seeking joint patta, but the same was not considered. Hence, he made a representation dated 06.01.2025, before the District Collector, Chengalpattu, which was later forwarded to the respondent. However, the said representation was not considered, as on date. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

4. Though many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2025.

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered and orders passed within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

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

7. Considering the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel 3/6

for the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2025 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as aggrieved persons if any, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

List this case on 14.10.2025 under the caption "For Reporting Compliance".

02.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No vm To 4/6

The Tahsildar, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm 5/6

02.09.2025 6/6