Thirupathi.R v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and W.M.P.(MD)No.5181 of 2023 R.Thirupathi ... Petitioner Vs The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul 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 conduct survey, fix four boundaries and grant patta for remaining 1.05 acres out of 1.95 acres assigned in Survey No.559, Poondi Village, (Nattampatti - Karuthalapatti Kadu), Polur, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District by the then District Collector, Madurai in Rc.No.A3/945/A/72 dated 04.05.1972, as per actual possession and enjoyment of petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For Respondent : Mr.M.Gangatharan, Government Advocate.

1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondent to conduct survey and grant patta for 1.05 acres out of 1.95 acres assigned in his favour in Survey No.559, Poondi Village, (Nattampatti - Karuthalapatti Kadu), Polur, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Gangatharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, the land with an extent of 1.95 acres in Survey No.559/7 in the above mentioned village was assigned in favour of the petitioner's grandfather Kandasamy Chettiar. However, the respondent issued patta only for a lesser extent in favour of the petitioner's father in patta No.194. Even in the said patta, the survey number has been wrongly mentioned as S.No.559/2 instead of S.No. 559/7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, as legal representative of original assignee, is still in possession of 1.95 2/6

acres of land in S.No.559/7 and hence, he submitted a representation through his brother on 08.10.2018 before the Revenue Tahsildar, seeking issuance of patta for the remaining extent. The same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that if the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation giving full details of the property assigned in his favour with the supporting documents, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

5. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before the respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered by the respondent on its own merits and final orders shall be passed within a further period of eight (8) weeks, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, other legal heirs of original assignee and other interested parties.

3/6

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.07.2025 vsm Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No 4/6

To The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

5/6

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

vsm W.P (MD) No.5552 of 2023 02.07.2025 6/6