Dismissed¶61

Gurujala Jayachandra Naidu v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Sept 2025WP/35517/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 35517 of 2025; decided 19-09-2025; Justice Krishnan Ramasamy; Article 226; writ of mandamus; representation dated 17.11.2023; status report of survey numbers; Ac. 1030.00; Irunganukottai Village; Sriperumbudur Taluk; Kanchipuram District; Tahsildar; Revenue Divisional Officer; District Collector; encumbrance certificate; Sub-Registrar Office; patta lands; B.P. No.7743 dated 02.12.1864; Title Deed Nos.1504 and 304 in Register No.61 dated 19.07.1985; writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Merely furnishing more than 20 survey numbers and requesting the Tahsildar to give a status report is not proper; the right course for the petitioner is to seek an encumbrance certificate from the concerned Sub-Registrar Office, through which he can get the status of those survey numbers.

Gurujala Jayachandra Naidu Vs State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 35517 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

WP No. 35517 of 2025

¶7

Mr.Gurajala Jayachandra Naidu, S/o. Late Veera Swamy Naidu, Occ. Nil R/o. H.O. 16-7-14 M.D.H. Begum Street, Poornanandanpeta, Vijayawada, NTR District, 520 003.

¶8

Rep. By His Attorney Agent Mr. Potla Malathi Rao, H.No.1-8-78, Jubileepura, Khammanm District -507 003, Telangana State.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

1.State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai, Tamilnadu.

¶12

2.The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Beach Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu State,

¶13

3.The District Collector, Collectorate, Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu State -631 501.

¶14

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

¶15

WP No. 35517 of 2025

¶16

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sripermbudur, Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu State -602 105.

¶17

5.The Tahsildar,

¶18

Sripermabudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu State -602 105

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 to 5 to consider the representations having been submitted dated 17.11.2023 and requesting to issue status report in respect of the open land admeasuring Ac. 1030.00 in Sy. Nos.50/11, 54/6, 68/1, 83/16, 89/3, 88/11, 147/2, 147/3, 147/7, 150/2, 14/15, 151/1, 151, 150/4, 163/12, 166/1, 168/4, 169, 219/3, 237/14, 238/5, 244/6, 267/9, 271/13, 272/13, 272/19, 273/11, 328/5, 338 and 340 situated at Irunganukottai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, which were succeeded by virtue of the then Board Proceedings vide B.P. No.7743 dated 02.12.1864 and the Title Deed issued then vide No.1504 and 304 in Register No.61, dated 19.07.1985.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Mazhaimeni Pandiyan

¶22

For Respondent: Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja Government Advocate

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 35517 of 2025

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction

¶27

to the respondents 3 to 5 to consider the representations having been submitted dated 17.11.2023 and requesting to issue status report in respect of the open land admeasuring Ac. 1030.00 in Sy. Nos.50/11, 54/6, 68/1, 83/16, 89/3, 88/11,

¶28

147/2, 147/3, 147/7, 150/2, 14/15, 151/1, 151, 150/4, 163/12, 166/1, 168/4, 169, 219/3, 237/14, 238/5, 244/6, 267/9, 271/13, 272/13, 272/19, 273/11, 328/5, 338 and 340 situated at Irunganukottai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, which were succeeded by virtue of the then Board Proceedings vide B.P. No.7743 dated 02.12.1864 and the Title Deed issued then vide No.1504 and

¶29

304 in Register No.61, dated 19.07.1985.

¶30

Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate takes notice on

¶31

behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is

¶32

taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 35517 of 2025

¶35

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that land admeasuring

¶36

Ac. 1030.00 in Sy. Nos.50/11, 54/6, 68/1, 83/16, 89/3, 88/11, 147/2, 147/3,

¶37

147/7, 150/2, 14/15, 151/1, 151, 150/4, 163/12, 166/1, 168/4, 169, 219/3, 237/14, 238/5, 244/6, 267/9, 271/13, 272/13, 272/19, 273/11, 328/5, 338 and 340, situated at Irunganukottai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District are the petitioner's ancestral property and all are patta lands. Since the petitioner wants to know about the status of the aforesaid survey numbers, the representation dated 17.11.2023 has been made to the respondents 3 to 5. However, so far, the same was not considered by them. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶38

4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would

¶39

submit that as far as the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2023 is concerned, he requested the Tahsildar to give the status report of these survey

¶40

numbers. In the event, the petitioner has grievance regarding the wrong full entries or else if any of the survey number is not included in the revenue

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 35517 of 2025

¶43

records, the Tahsildar can take proper action if the copies of the patta and chitta

¶44

regarding the aforesaid survey numbers are provided by the petitioner. Whereas,

¶45

in the present case, the petitioner has sought for status report by merely

¶46

providing more than 20 survey numbers, where the properties stand in the name of his forefather. The details sought by the petitioner cannot be provided merely

¶47

by providing the survey numbers alone. The right course available to t he petitioner is to seek encumbrance certificate from the concerned Sub-Registrar Office. Hence, he would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶48

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

¶49

Government Advocate appearing for t h e respondents.

¶50

6.Considering the submissions made by either parties, this Court finds

¶51

force in the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing

¶52

for the respondents that merely by furnishing more than 20 survey numbers and

¶53

requesting the Tahsildar to give the status report is not proper on the part of the