P.G.Subba Raja v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 12.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY P.G.Subba Raja ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Registrar, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
2. The Sub Registrar, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction particularly in the nature of writ, directing the respondents to rectify the classification of Survey No. 451/1B in Vazhaikulam Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District from Street to Dry Special Type - I in the guideline value register within a timeframe fixed by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the classification of S.No.451/1B in Vazhaikulam Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District from Street to Dry Special Type - I and accordingly make corrections in the guideline value register.
2. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the properties comprised in Survey Nos.451/1A, 451/1B, 451/1C, and 451/2. The said properties are shown as streets in the guideline value records.
3. As a matter of fact, the patta stands in the name of the petitioner. When the petitioner earlier submitted an application seeking rectification of the error and fixation of the guideline value, an order came to be passed by the first respondent on 09.08.2024 directing the second respondent to submit a proposal along with a due certificate issued by the local body. Accordingly, the local body issued a certificate on 16.03.2025, and the petitioner submitted the same before the second respondent. Even thereafter, no further action has been taken.
4. The learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that further proceedings would be undertaken in accordance with law.
5. Upon considering the rival submissions, it can be seen that by communication dated 09.08.2024, the 1st respondent had called for a proposal from the 2nd respondent along with the requisite certificate. The petitioner has obtained the certificate from the local authority on 17.03.2025. If the proposal has already been submitted by the 2nd
respondent, the 1st respondent shall proceed with the same and pass appropriate orders. If no proposal is submitted, the 2nd respondent is directed to submit the proposal, and thereafter the 1st respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
12.06.2026 rgm
To
1. The District Registrar, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
2. The Sub Registrar, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.
rgm 12.06.2026