L.Sundarapandi v. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.04.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P.(MD)No.9653 of 2025 L.Sundarapandi : Petitioner Vs.

The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai.

: Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in File No. 2025/0103/24/387597, dated 17.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue patta in the name of petitioner in respect of S.Nos.19/1A1 and 19/1A2, situated in Valayankulam Village, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondent : Mrs.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that not only the respondent has passed a cryptic order but also the reasons assigned for rejecting the petitioner's request is unsubstantiated and based on incorrect decision. According to the petitioner, the petitioner relies on a registered sale deed, whereas the rejection order states as if the petitioner relying on an unregistered sale deed. He would further state that in terms of Revenue Standing Order, the sub-division and separate registry of joint holding is permissible when the other joint holders have no objection. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, other coowners have already consented for necessary sub-division to be effected. He would further submit that in respect of other survey numbers, such exercise has been carried out and sub-division has 2/5

been already effected. Having perused the records, I find merit in the submissions made by the Counsel for petitioner. 3.Therefore, I am unable to sustain the impugned order. 4.For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to put forth his objections. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that since the petitioner has already produced the consent of the co-owners, the orders shall be passed in terms of Revenue Standing Order. 5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.04.2025 Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR 3/5

To The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai.

4/5

P.B.BALAJI.

, J.

MR 30.04.2025 5/5