Mrs.M.Padma v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 19.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P.No. 49855 of 2025 M. Padma

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

3.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Ranipet District.

4.B.Baskaran 5.B.Jayachandran

...Respondents

1/6

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to conduct enquiry against the 4th and 5th respondents based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.12.2025. For Petitioner :

Mr. M.G.Ramachandiran For Respondents :

Mrs. S.Anitha 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to conduct enquiry against the 4th and 5th respondents based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.12.2025.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely, Munusamy Naidu and his brother one Balakrishan Naidu had inherited an ancestral property at S.No.396A/4A at Vaniyampet, Thanigai Polur, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. The land belongs to the petitioner's 2/6

husband, namely, Munusamy Naidu and his brother Balakrishan Naidu.

2. It is her further case that in the year 2011, while the petitioner's husband was not doing well and bedridden, the petitioner's nephews, namely, Baskaran and Jayachandran, 4th and 5th respondents respectively, assured that they will take care of the petitioner and her husband and obtained a fraudulent sale deed in Doc.No.3196/2011 dated 27.04.2011 at Sub Registrar Office, Arakkonam, instead of obtaining a Will.

3. After the demise of the petitioner's husband on 27.07.2011, both the nephews abandoned the petitioner without taking care of her, but they are enjoying the petitioner's husband's property and the income from the lands. While questioning the same, they replied that they registered the lands by paying appropriate amount for the lands. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents herein on 03.12.2023 and till now enquiry was not conducted and the representation is still pending without any progress. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3/6

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an octogenarian, who is immobile and need full time care and her monthly expenses for medicine, physiotherapy and a full-time attendant is very high. If she get her husband's lands back, it will fulfill her financial requirements by renting the lands till her lifetime. Therefore, he would plead that direction may be issued to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to conduct enquiry based on the petitioner's representation.

5. Considering the above facts and the fact that the petitioner's representation has not been considered till date, there shall be a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to conduct an enquiry based on the petitioner's representation and pass orders, within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 19.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

3.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Ranipet District.

5/6

P.T. ASHA, J kan 19.12.2025 6/6