A lessee sought a mandamus directing registration officials to enquire into his objection to sale of leased land after his five-year lease expired without extension. The court held an expired lease gave no right to object and dismissed the writ, leaving him free to pursue civil remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.13056 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :16.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.13056 of 2025
P.S.Ponram ... Petitioner
vs.
Dindigul -4
Dindigul -4. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's objection petition dated 08.04.2025 in respect to his property situated in Survey no.319/1D, 319/1E, 319/10, 319/11, 319/2A2, 319/2A7 at Mullipadi Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District pending on the file of the 2nd respondent within the period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : M/s.Maria Vinola
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameshwaran Government Advocate
1/4
W.P(MD)No.13056 of 2025
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners objection petition dated 08.04.2025 within the period stipulated by this Court.
2. According to the petitioner, one Rasuthevar and his wife was having larger portion of the property. The petitioner purchased only 66 1/2 cents. The remaining portion of the property the petitioner is in possession of the land based on a five-years lease agreement. As the five years have been completed and no extension of the lease was granted, the wife of Rasuthevar sold the property. Therefore, the petitioner has raised an objection before the respondents.
3. It is evident that the petitioner does not have the right to raise an objection based on the lease agreement, which was not extended. Therefore, the petitioner’s request for Mandamus to consider and pass orders cannot be entertained. If the petitioner intends to extend the lease agreement, he may approach the appropriate civil forum to determine whether he is entitled to an extension and whether he has invested money in developing the land. These issues cannot be considered by this Court or by the respondents.
2/4
W.P(MD)No.13056 of 2025
4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty
is granted to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the appropriate civil forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
16.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes
KSA
To:
3/4
W.P(MD)No.13056 of 2025
S.SRIMATHY, J.
KSA
ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.13056 of 2025
DATED :16.06.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should direct registration authorities to act on the petitioner's objection petition when his lease had expired without extension.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.S.Ponram
The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Velunachiyar Campus, Dindigul -4
The Joint Sub Registrar I, Office of the Sub Registrar, Velunachiyar Campus, Dindigul -4
S.SRIMATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
