← Library
Madras High CourtWP/36302/2025disposed of

C.Dhanraj v. The District Collector

2025-09-24Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.Dhanraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector Erode District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobi Taluk, Erode District.

3. The Tahsildar Sathyamangalam Taluk Office, Erode District.

4. Nagaraj ... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 3 respondents to cancel the patta which was issued in the name of 4th respondent and his Vendor in patta No.1544, 2999, 1543, 748 and also issue fresh patta in the name of petitioner for the S.No.648/3 to the extent of 1.44 cents (Old S.No.10C) situated at Sikkarasampalayam Village, Sathyamangalam, Erode District by considering the representation dated 06.08.2025 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arun For Respondent : Mr.C.Jayaprakash, GA for R1 to R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1 to 3 respondents to cancel the patta which was issued in the name of 4th respondent and his Vendor and also to issue fresh patta in the name of petitioner by considering the representation dated 06.08.2025.

2. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate, 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, the subject property was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 29.07.2004. Thereafter, he came to know that a portion of the 2/6

subject land was wrongly included in the patta of the 4th respondent. Hence, a representation was made by the petitioner to cancel the patta issued in name of the 4th respondent and also to issue fresh patta in the name of the petitioner. However, the said representation was not at all considered by the respondents 1 to 3 till date. Hence, this writ petition.

5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would request this Court to pass appropriate orders directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, the subject property was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 29.07.2004. Thereafter, he came to know that a portion of the subject land was wrongly included in the patta of the 3/6

4th respondent. Hence, a representation was made by the petitioner to cancel the patta issued in name of the 4th respondent and also to issue fresh patta in the name of the petitioner. However, the said representation was not at all considered by the respondents 1 to 3 till date.

8. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2025 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law after serving due notice to all the private respondent/aggrieved persons if any, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

24.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa 4/6

To

1. The District Collector Erode District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobi Taluk, Erode District.

3. The Tahsildar Sathyamangalam Taluk Office, Erode District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 24.09.2025 6/6