Ulaganathan v. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER W.P.(MD)No.3644 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD).No.2954 of 2026 Ulaganathan ... Petitioner Vs The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in 2025/N103/29/022906 dated 12.08.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to mutate patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land to an extent of 5 cents in S.No.6D/4B7 situated at, Pudhukudi Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, on the basis of partition deed dated 23.10.1974.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthick Raja For Respondent : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian Government Advocate

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order in 2025/N103/29/022906 dated 12.08.2025 and consequently, to direct the respondent to mutate patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land to an extent of 5 cents in S.No.6D/4B7 situated at, Pudhukudi Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, on the basis of partition deed dated 23.10.1974.

2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's request for mutation of Patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land measuring an extent of 5 cents in S.No.6D/4B7 2/5

situated at, Pudhukudi Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, on the basis of partition deed dated 23.10.1974, was rejected by the respondent vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2025, without any valid reason. Further, in the impugned order, the respondent stated that if a fresh application is made after rectification of the defects, the same may be entertained.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has filed an application with some defects and therefore, his application was rejected. If the petitioner submits a fresh application before the respondent, the same will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will file a fresh application.

6. In the event of filing a fresh application, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible.

.

3/5

7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(K.SURENDER, J.) 10.02.2026 vsg Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

4/5

K.SURENDER, J., vsg W.P (MD) No.3644 of 2026 10.02.2026 5/5