← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/21020/2025disposed of

J.Arputha Leela v. The Tahsildar

2025-08-20Honourable Mr Justice S. Sounthar6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.(MD).No.21020 of 2025 J.Arputha Leela ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Taluk Surveyor, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant Patta by making sub division in the name of the petitioner on the basis of Sale Deed vide Document No.746/2005, dated 13.07.2005 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Rameswaram in respect of property in Old Survey No.786/1A1A, New Survey No. 786/1A1F comprised in patta No. 889 situated at Gandhi Nagar, Northern side railway, ward No.8, Rameswaram Municipality, Revenue Village and Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on the petitioner's patta application dated 29.04.2025. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate

ORDER

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to grant patta on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 13.07.2005 in respect of the subject property in Old Survey No.786/1A1A, New Survey No. 786/1A1F comprised in patta No.889 situated at Gandhi Nagar, Northern side railway, ward No.8, Rameswaram Municipality, Revenue Village and Taluk, Ramanathapuram District by considering the petitioner's application dated 29.04.2025.

2. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the application of the petitioner dated 29.04.2025 was already rejected by the respondents in his order dated 04.08.2025 in his proceedings in K:/K/m2/2585/2025. A copy of the order was also handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2/6

3. In the order of the rejection the respondents had stated that the petitioner failed to produce any documents to link his vendor's Santhi with the original owner Jeyapushpam and therefore, the request of the petitioner was rejected. It is further stated that if new application is filed by the petitioner with necessary documents, the same will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is willing to submit a fresh application with necessary documents. The said statement is recorded. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh application with necessary documents before the respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of fresh application, the respondent shall consider the same and pass final orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter, after issuing notice to the petitioner, her vendor namely Santhi and other interested parties. 3/6

5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

20.08.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm 4/6

To

1. The Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Taluk Surveyor, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

5/6

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

rgm W.P.(MD).No.21020 of 2025 20.08.2025 6/6