D.Ajithkumar v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P(MD)No.20655 of 2025 D.Ajithkumar ... Petitioner .Vs.

The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent in impugned rejection order vide his proceedings in Na.KJa.No.A1/2042/2025, dated 21.5.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to subdivide the Petitioner's land and issue separate patta to an extent of 1089 sq.ft(101.17 sq.mtrs) in S.No.358/2B1, Patta No. 1597, situated at Villicheri-I Village, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District as per the sale deed in Document No.1313 of 2020, dated 24.7.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sankar For Respondent : Mrs.K.Malathi Addl.Govt. Pleader 1/5

O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent rejecting the application submitted by the Petitioner seeking sub-division of the properties purchased by him.

2.Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.It is the case of the Petitioner that he purchased 2 1⁄2 cents of land in S.No.358/2B1 in the year 2020 by Document No. 1313/2020. He submitted an application before the respondent seeking sub-division of the property purchased by him. The same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has come before this court with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

4.A reading of the impugned order would suggest that the Petitioner has purchased 2 1⁄2 cents in subject survey number in the year 2020 and the Petitioner's rival Balamurugan purchased 3 1⁄2 cents in the very same subject survey number in the year 2011 2/5

in Document No.1098/2011. It is further stated in the impugned order that the extent available on ground is less than the extent purchased by the Petitioner and the said Balamurugan. In such circumstances, the respondent has rejected the application submitted by the Petitioner for sub-division of the property purchased by him.

5.The title document of Balamurugan is anterior in time. He purchased 3 1⁄2 cents in the subject survey number in the year 2011. The Petitioner purchased 2 1⁄2 cents of land in the subject survey number in the year 2020. Since the extent available on ground is not sufficient to meet the total extent purchased by the Petitioner and Balamurugan, the respondent has rejected the application of the Petitioner. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the respondent.

6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. If the Petitioner has got any parent title document to establish his anterior right, it is open to him to file fresh application before the respondent seeking sub-division of the property or it is open to the Petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for necessary relief, in the manner known to law. No costs. 3/5

30.07.2025 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

S.SOUNTHAR.,J.

vsn 4/5

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.20655 of 2025 30.07.2025 5/5