Chellathai V v. The Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :09.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER Chellathai V ... Petitioner Vs The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar 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 pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent in Oo.Mu.Aa1/2203/2025 dated 03.07.2025, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and consequently direct the respondent to issue patta in the petitioner name in respect of the land comprised in S.No. 254/8, situated at Kunnur Village, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, measuring an extent of 828 Sq.ft., within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Balaji For Respondents :Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate 1/4

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the respondent in Oo.Mu.Aa1/2203/2025 dated 03.07.2025 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to issue patta in the petitioner's name in respect of the land comprised in S.No. 254/8, situated at Kunnur Village, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, measuring an extent of 828 Sq.ft., within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when representation was made for the purpose of patta, it was informed that the land in question is a Government poramboke. Counsel further submits that the said land was given towards assignment for a period of 10 years and thereafter assignee had sold the land to the petitioner. 2/4

4. The validity of the earlier assignment and all other aspects can only be agitated before the competent civil Court to know whether the rights transferred on to the petitioner are in accordance with law or not. No further direction could be given to the Tahsildar for that purpose and the petitioner has to ventilate her grievance before the civil Court.

5. With the above observation, the writ petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(K.SURENDER, J) 09.12.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No RR To The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District..

3/4

K.SURENDER, J.

RR 09.12.2025 4/4