G.Dayalan, Vs The Sub Collector

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to complete the enquiry and pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 20.11.2018 in Na.Ka.No.A2/6600/2018 dated 28.11.2018 which was given for subdivision of

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

land and also for issuance of separate patta to him after providing opportunity to the 5^th and 6^th respondents in Survey No.214/5, Pillaiar Koil Street, Pananthoppu Village, Thiruvalam Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh For R1 : Mrs.Anitha, SGP RR1 to 4 RR5 and R6 – No appearance

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to complete the enquiry and pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 20.11.2018 in Na.Ka.No.A2/6600/2018 dated 28.11.2018 which was given for subdivision of land and also for issuance of separate patta to him after providing opportunity to the 5^th and 6^th respondents in Survey No.214/5, Pillaiar Koil Street, Pananthoppu Village, Thiruvalam Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of 4 ½ cents of vacant land in Survey No.214/5, this land was got through a registered Will from his father. The petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 are close relatives, therefore, at the time of selling of land, there was no dispute arose. However, in the year 2013, the petitioner gave an application through the 4^th respondent to the second respondent to subdivide the land and lay boundaries and also to issue separate pattas both the petitioner and 5^th and 6^th respondents

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

and the same was not considered. Hence, the present writ petition has filed.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may permit the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the jurisdictional Thasildar for sub-division and for issuance of patta and issue a direction to the concerned Tahsildar consider the same and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special

¶28

Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court permits the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the jurisdictional Tahsildar along with all the relevant documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the concerned Tahsildar shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the private respondents within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

M. DHANDAPANI, J

¶33

rli

¶34

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶35

costs.

¶36

08.09.2025 Index : Yes/No rli To 1.The Sub Collector, Vellore District, Vellore. 2. The Tahsildar, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. 3. The Surveyor, Thiruvalam Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. 4. The Village Administrative Officer, Thiruvalam Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶37

W.P. No.18898 of 2019

¶38

08.09.2025

¶39

4/4

¶40

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

G.Dayalan, v. The Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Dayalan, v. The Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puducherry Cable Tv Operators Vs Union of India

D.Selvaraj Vs The District Revenue Officer

T.Mohanraj Vs The District Revenue Officer

P.Thenmozhi Vs The Sub Collector

P.Jegannathan, Vs Tahsildar

J.Selvaraj Yadav Vs The District Registrar of Societies