Disposed

G.Parvathy v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Nov 2025WP/20749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct a government response to a representation regarding deletion of a temple name from land records. The court noted the respondent had already passed an order, leading to disposal with liberty to challenge the same.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to challenge the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer.

G.Parvathy Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

G.Parvathy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf Board, Puducherry.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Tirunallar, Karaikkal District, Puducherry State.

¶12

3.The Special Officer, Arulmigu Sree Seethala Devi Mariamman Temple, Kizhasembiankaal, Nedungaadu Commune, Karikkal District, Puducherry State.

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

¶16

4.The Settlement Officer, Karikkal, Puducherry State. ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to grant "No Objection Certificate" for deleting the name of the third respondent temple from the joint patta No. 138 pertaining to the lands comprised in Re-survey No. 212/4, measuring 28 Ares situated at No. 7, Ponbethy Revenue Village, Nedungaadu Commune, Karaikkal District, Puducherry State by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2023 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kamaraj For Respondents : Mr.Vasanthakumar Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner prays for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to

¶21

direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2023 regarding issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to delete the

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

¶25

name of the third respondent Temple from the joint patta bearing No. 138 pertaining to the lands comprised in Re-survey Number 212/4, measuring 28 Ares situated at No.7, Ponbethy Revenue Village, Nedungaadu Commune, Karaikkal District, Puducherry State.

¶26

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Mr.Vasanthakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had already made an application before the Settlement Officer for deleting the name of the temple and after considering the request and after conducting due enquiry, final orders have been passed by the Settlement Officer on 09.10.2025.

¶27

Mr.R.Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶28

submitted that however the petitioner has not been served any such order till date. Today, a copy of the said order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 09.10.2025 has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

¶32

In view of the subsequent event, there is no point in keeping

¶33

this writ petition pending. The writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 09.10.2025 in the manner known to law. No costs.

¶34

The copy of the order furnished by Mr.Vasanthakumar,

¶35

learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents itself state that there is an appeal remedy available to the Director of Survey and Land Records, Puducherry. Any appeal preferred within 30 days from today, shall be entertained without putting limitation against the petitioner.

¶36

10.11.2025

¶37

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

¶41

¶42

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf Board, Puducherry.

¶43

2.The Tahsildar, Tirunallar, Karaikkal District, Puducherry State.

¶44

3.The Special Officer, Arulmigu Sree Seethala Devi Mariamman Temple, Kizhasembiankaal, Nedungaadu Commune, Karikkal District, Puducherry State.

¶45

4.The Settlement Officer, Karikkal, Puducherry State.

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

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

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

P.B.BALAJI, J.

mtl

W.P.No.20749 of 2024

10.11.2025

Page 6 of 6

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

G.Parvathy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Parvathy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambur Co. Operaive Sugar Mill Higher Secondary School Vs the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary)

The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector La Vs M Sriramanathan

The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector La Vs T R Ramasamy

T.Duraivel Vs v.Malathi

Palaniammal Vs N. Arumugam

Chennai Yessen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dg Luxury Cars (Opc)