Allowed

G.Arulmozhi v. the Tahsilar

Madras HC9 Sept 2024WP/25200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash an order refusing sub-division of 1 acre land settled in the petitioner's father's name. The Court held the refusal based on missing boundary stones unsustainable and directed inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Imugned order set aside; Tahsildar directed to consider sub-division request referencing revenue documents and settlement deed within twelve weeks after issuing necessary notices.

G.Arulmozhi Vs the Tahsilar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 25200 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :09.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P. No.25200 of 2024

G.Arulmozhi

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tahsildar Gudiyatham Taluk Gudiyatham Vellore District

¶11

The Taluk Surveyor Taluk Office Gudiyatham Taluk Gudiyatham

¶12

Vellore District.

¶13

The Village Administrative Officer Seruvangi Village Gudiyatham Taluk Vellore District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in her office proceedings Na.Ka.P1/5789/2023 dated 17.5.2024 quash the same and directing the

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P. No. 25200 of 2024

¶19

respondents 1 and 2 to measure 1 acre of land comprised in S.No.31/,Seruvangi village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore district fix the boundaries, effect sub division and issue separate patta to the petitioner, his brothers and sisters jointly within the time

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent refusing to effect sub-division of the property settled in favour of petitioner's father, Gajendran, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the land with an extent of 1 acre 30 cents

¶24

situated in Survey No.31/7 at Kalleri road, Kondasamuthiram, Gandhi Nagar, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District originally belonged to one Lakshmi Ammal, the great grand mother of the petitioner. She executed a settlement deed settling 1 acre out of 1 acre and 30 cents in Survey No.31/7 in favour of petitioner's father, Gajendran. The petitioner submitted an application seeking sub-division of the property settled in favour of his father, Gajendran and the 2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P. No. 25200 of 2024

¶27

same has been negatived by the 1^st respondent on the ground that no boundary stones are available for the property in possession of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

The request of the petitioner was mainly negatived by the 1^st respondent on the ground that there was no boundary stones for 1 acre settled in favour of the petitioner's father. The said reasoning is unsustainable on the face of it. It is not disputed that total extent available in Survey No.31/7 is 1 acre and 30 cents. The petitioner wants sub-division of 1 acre settled in favour of his father, Gajendran as per the settlement deed dated 30.07.1958. If the property settled in favour of petitioner's father was already sub-divided and the boundary stones are fixed, absolutely there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek sub-division of the property again. Since the portion of the property settled in favour of petitioner's father, Gajendran was not sub-divided after settlement in his favour, the petitioner seeks sub-division of the 1 acre. Therefore, it is for the 1^st respondent to identify the Survey No.31/7 and then, find out the 1 acre settled in favour of petitioner's father, Gajendran with reference to the boundary description found in the title document of the

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P. No. 25200 of 2024

¶32

parties. Instead of undertaking the said exercise, the 1^st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that boundary stones are not fixed for 1 acre settled in favour of the petitioner's father. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the 1^st respondent is unsustainable and accordingly, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for effecting sub-division of 1 acre settled in favour of petitioner's father with reference to the revenue documents pertains to Survey No.31/7 and the settlement deed executed in favour of petitioner's father and pass final orders on merits after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner and all other interested parties within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶34

09.09.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No nr

¶36

4/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P. No. 25200 of 2024

¶39

¶40

1.The Tahsildar Gudiyatham Taluk Gudiyatham Vellore District

¶41

The Taluk Surveyor Taluk Office Gudiyatham Taluk Gudiyatham Vellore District.

¶42

The Village Administrative Officer Seruvangi Village Gudiyatham Taluk Vellore District.

¶43

5/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P. No. 25200 of 2024

¶46

S.SOUNTHAR, J. nr

¶47

W.P. No.25200 of 2024

¶48

09.09.2024

¶49

6/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Arulmozhi v. the Tahsilar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Arulmozhi v. the Tahsilar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Manickam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Raji @ Raju Vs the Arbitrator Cum District Collector

I.Dominic Raj Vs the Inpsector General of Registration

Sri Pidari Ettiamman Trust Vs the District Collector

C.Loganathan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C.Loganathan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu