Disposed

Arumugam v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC5 Aug 2025WP/27730/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta mutation rejected citing measurement variation; writ petition disposed by permitting petitioner to treat impugned order as notice and file objections with documents, with directions to respondents to decide after hearing within fixed timelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner may treat impugned order as notice and file objections within two weeks; respondents to consider and pass orders after hearing within twelve weeks; no costs.

Arumugam Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No.27730 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.27730 of 2025

¶7

and W.M.P. No.31072 of 2025

Arumugam

Petitioner(s)

1.The Tahsildar, Nambiyur Taluk Office, Nambiyur Erode District.

¶12

2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Nambiyur Taluk Office, Nambiyur Erode District.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Koppu No.2025/0105/10/365231 dated 31.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal consequently, direct the respondents to issue separate patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of survey No.527/2A for an extent of 0.49.80 hectares (1 acre and 23 cents) situated at Koshanam “A” Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.Illanchezian

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader ORDER

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P. No.27730 of 2025

¶20

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up

¶21

for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶22

2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 whereby petitioner's request for mutation of patta in his name in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.527/2A, measuring an extent of 0.49.80 (1 acre 23 cents) situated at Koshanam “A” Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode, was rejected.

¶23

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the subject property was settled in favour of the petitioner by his mother vide registered settlement deed bearing Document No.533 of 2025 dated 03.02.2025. It is stated that patta in respect of the subject property stands in the name of petitioner's mother Venkitammal, wife of Palanisamy. Petitioner applied for mutation of patta, however, the same was rejected based on the recommendation of the Village Administrative Officer/ 1 st respondent, on the premise that there is measurement variation in the field and document. It is the case of the petitioner that they may be provided with an opportunity to put forth their explanation. Hence, this writ petition.

¶24

4. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P. No.27730 of 2025

¶28

Government Pleader for respondents that petitioner may treat the impugned order as notice and submit his objections along with documentary evidence, if any such response is filed, the same would be considered by the respondents and appropriate orders would be passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and other interested parties.

¶29

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner may treat the impugned order as notice and submit his objections along with documentary evidence within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of web copy without waiting for receipt of certified copy. If any such response is filed by the petitioner, the concerned respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

05.08.2025

¶31

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P. No.27730 of 2025

¶35

To:

¶36

1.The Tahsildar, Nambiyur Taluk Office, Nambiyur Erode District.

¶37

2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Nambiyur Taluk Office, Nambiyur Erode District.

¶38

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶39

mka

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P. No.27730 of 2025

¶43

W.P. No.27730 of 2025

05.08.2025

(2/2)

5/5

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

Arumugam v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam v. the Tahsildar

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

K.M.K.Achuth Vs S. Mangalam

Murtuza B J Vs the Inspector General of Registration

V.Rajamani Vs The District REgistrar

Pannerselvam Vs the Tahsildar

Sudha Vs the Tahsildar

sithammal Vs the Government of Puducherry