Dismissed¶20

Jeyaramalingam S v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC13 Jun 2025WP(MD)/15989/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025, decided 13.06.2025 by Justice S.Sounthar. Mandamus/patta cancellation; Article 226; representation dated 07.04.2025 to cancel Patta No.637 in favour of second respondent Erulappa Pillai; earlier W.P.No.25138 of 2024 re representation dated 20.09.2024; representation failed to disclose petitioner's right/title over property; no direction issued; petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Because the petitioner's representation did not state how he has got right over the subject property and referred only to the order passed in the earlier writ petition, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to consider his representation. ¶16

Jeyaramalingam S Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025

¶7

S.Jeyaramalingam ... Petitioner (Minor represented through his father E.Selvam) Vs 1 The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. 2 Erulappa Pillai ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to cancel the previous patta No.637 in S.No.163/52 an extent of 900 Sq. feet vacant house site at Thirumangalam Municipality, Ward 12, and represented this matter to the first respondent, dated on 07.04.2025.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Palanirajan For Respondent 1 : Mrs.K.Malathi, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

¶10

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking a direction to first respondent to cancel the patta issued in Patta No.637 in favour of second respondent.

¶15

Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25138 of 2024, seeking a direction to the respondent to issue patta in his name, by considering his representation, dated 20.09.2024. The said writ petition was ordered, directing the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.09.2024, within a period of eight weeks. If the representation of the petitioner was not considered as directed by this court, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶16

Now, the petitioner filed another representation before first respondent, seeking cancellation of earlier patta issued in favour of second respondent in Patta No.637. However, in the representation, the petitioner has not stated how he has got right over the subject property. He only referred to the order passed in the earlier writ petition. Since the petitioner has not mentioned his right over the property in his representation, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to consider his representation.

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025

¶20