Disposed¶44

P.Siddhumari v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Sept 2025WP/34146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Mandamus; Article 226; patta inclusion; joint owner; District Collector Erode District; District Revenue Officer Erode; Headquarters Tahsildar Anthiyur; RDO order dated 31.03.2012; DRO appeal rejected 10.01.2014; O.S.No.390 of 2011 dismissed 15.09.2016; A.S.No.71 of 2016 dismissed 29.10.2021; online applications rejected; representation dated 12.04.2025 unconsidered; direction to consider and dispose within 4 weeks; taken up at admission stage by consent; P.Siddhumari; Sundara @ P.Sundaram; J.Sivakumar; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; 12.09.2025; W.P.No.34146 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent (District Collector, Erode District) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025 within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

P.Siddhumari Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue under Article 226 directing the first respondent (District Collector, Erode District) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025 seeking issuance of patta including the petitioner's name in the subject property.

¶18

Court's answer

The petitioner is recorded as the joint owner of the subject property.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's claim for inclusion of his name in the patta was accepted by the RDO vide proceedings dated 31.03.2012 and confirmed at various levels of litigation, yet the representation dated 12.04.2025 remained unconsidered.

¶42

Key takeaways

The first respondent (District Collector, Erode District) is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.), W.P.No.34146 of 2025, order dated 12.09.2025: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to the District Collector, Erode District to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025 for issuance of patta including the petitioner's name in the subject property. The petitioner's inclusion claim had been allowed by the RDO (order dated 31.03.2012); respondents 5 and 6's appeal before the DRO was rejected (10.01.2014) with liberty to file a civil suit; their suit O.S.No.390 of 2011 (dismissed 15.09.2016) and appeal A.S.No.71 of 2016 (dismissed 29.10.2021) failed; subsequent online applications were rejected and the 12.04.2025 representation lay unconsidered. Noting the petitioner as joint owner of the subject property and that the RDO order stood confirmed at various levels of litigation, the Court directed the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of, no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.34146 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 12.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.34146 of 2025

P.Siddhumari

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector Erode District.

¶11

District Revenue Officer Erode District.

¶12

The Head Quarters Tahsildar Anthiyur, Erode District.

¶13

Sundara @ P.Sundaram

¶14

J.Siddhumari

¶15

J.Sivakumar

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer:

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 12.04.2025

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.34146 of 2025

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.Chandrasekaran.P For Respondent : Mrs.S.Indhu Bala, AGP for R1 to R3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to

¶25

consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025.

¶26

Mrs.S.Indhu Bala, learned Additional Government Pleader,

¶27

takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

¶28

By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the petitioner filed an application before the Revenue District Officer, requesting him to include her name along with the names of the 5^th and 6^th respondents in the patta of the subject property. After conducting the enquiry, the said application was allowed by the RDO vide order dated 31.03.2012. Aggrieved over the said order, an

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.34146 of 2025

¶33

appeal was preferred by the respondents 5 & 6 before the DRO. However, the said appeal was rejected and vide order dated 10.01.2014, whereby the parties were directed to file a civil suit. Pursuant to the said order, a suit was filed in OS.No.390 of 2011 by the respondents 5 & 6, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2016, against which, A.S.No.71 of 2016 was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2021. Under these circumstances, the online applications were filed by the petitioner requesting the respondents to include his name in the patta of the subject property. However, the said applications were rejected. Hence, a physical representation was made by the petitioner on 12.04.2025 before the 1^st respondent. However, the same was not considered till date. Hence, this writ petition.

¶34

In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing

¶35

for the respondents 1 to 3 would request this Court to grant 4 weeks time to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.34146 of 2025

¶40

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

¶41

In the case on hand, the petitioner is the joint owner of the

¶42

subject property and hence, he made an application to include his name in the patta of the said property. The said aspect was accepted by the RDO vide proceedings dated 31.03.2012, which was confirmed at various levels of litigation. Under these circumstances, a representation was made by the petitioner on 12.04.2025 before the 1^st respondent for issuance of patta for the subject property including his name. However, the same was not considered till date.

¶43

In view of the above, this Court directs the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44