Allowed

Madevan v. Tahsildhar

Madras HC4 Nov 2024WP/28055/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court issued a mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Tahsildhar to survey and subdivide specific land parcels within six weeks. The court mandated the issuance of notices to adjacent owners, a subsequent enquiry, and the passing of speaking orders upon rejection or approval.

What did the court decide?

A mandamus was issued to conduct survey and subdivision of the property within six weeks, including enquiry and notice to interested parties.

Madevan Vs Tahsildhar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.28055 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.28055 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.27567 of 2023

1. Madevan

2. Rajamanickam

... Petitioners

Vs.

Tahsildhar, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to survey the land and sub divide the property in S.F.No.324/1 with an extent of 3.25.0 Hec. and S.F.No.324/2 (old S.F.No.31) with an extent of 0.10.0 Hec. in Kottamalam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District in terms of the judgment dated 16.09.2013 in O.S.No.40 of 2013 passed by Sub Court, Sathyamangalam as confirmed by III Additional District Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District in A.S.No.27 of 2019 on 09.04.2021 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.03.2023.

¶14

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

¶15

_____________ Page No. 1 of 4_

¶16

W.P.No.28055 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Titus Enock For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶20

takes notice on behalf of the Respondent.

¶21

The above Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to consider the

¶22

Petitioners representation dated 13.03.2023 for surveying the land and sub dividing the property in S.F.No.324/1 measuring an extent of 3.25.0 Hectares and S.No.324/2 (Old S.No.31) measuring an extent of 0.10.0 Hectares in Kottamalam Village Taluk, Erode District as per Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2013 in O.S.No.40 of 2013.

¶23

The Petitioners are aggrieved that the survey has not taken place

¶24

despite the Order of the Court.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶26

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

¶27

Page No. 2 of 4

¶28

W.P.No.28055 of 2023

¶29

Considering the request of the Petitioners and also the fact that the Petitioners have made their representation as early as on 13.03.2023, a mandamus is issued to the Respondent to conduct survey and subdivision of the petition mentioned property. The Petitioners shall submit all the relevant records to show their title to the property and the Respondent shall, after issuing notice to the adjacent land owners and interested parties, hold on enquiry and thereafter, proceed to pass orders either surveying and subdividing the property or rejecting the request. In the case of a rejection, a speaking order shall be passed. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶30

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶31

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

04.11.2024

¶33

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation :Yes/No rgm

¶34

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

¶35

Page No. 3 of 4

¶36

W.P.No.28055 of 2023

P.T.ASHA, J.

rgm

Tahsildhar, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.

¶41

W.P.No.28055 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.27567 of 2023

¶42

04.11.2024

¶43

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

¶44

_____________ Page No. 4 of 4_

Madevan v. Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madevan v. Tahsildhar

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.Ranjith Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Farakath Mohammed Fathima Vs The District Collector

M.Nagarega Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Periyasamy, Vs the District Collector

Chithra Vs the Arbitrator Cum District Collector

Muniyamma Vs The District Revenue Officer