Disposed¶39

Mamallan v. The Commissioner of land Administration

Madras HC17 Jul 2025WP(MD)/19365/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Survey of revenue land refused where claimant's share not identified by metes and bounds; petitioner claiming under 1998 Will by grandfather Balakrishnan must first obtain partition before approaching revenue authorities; challenge to Tahsildhar's order in Na.Ka.S.8309/2024 dated 15.03.2025 failed; UDR patta cancellation and fresh survey declined; Seriyalur Inam Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; W.P.(MD) No.19365 of 2025, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, S.Sounthar J., 17.07.2025, disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's request for survey cannot be considered in the absence of identification of the petitioner's share by metes and bounds. ¶38

Mamallan Vs The Commissioner of land Administration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19365 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19365 of 2025

Mamallan

Petitioner

1 The Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, Cheppakkam,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

2 The District Collector, Pudukkottai & District.

¶13

3 The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai & District.

¶14

4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

5 The Tahsildhar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶16

6 Arulselvam

¶17

7 Rajasulochana

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.19365 of 2025

8 Jeyaraj

9 Irumborai ...

Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.S.8309/2024, dated 15.03.2025, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to cancel the UDR Patta wrongly registered with regard to the petitioner's property situated in the S.F.Nos.57/2 with an extent of 2 Acres 70 Cents, 60/3 with an extent of 1 Acre 55 Cents situated in Seriyalur Inam Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, in the name of Sivarasu, Kanagarasu, and Respondent Nos.8 and 9 and to cancel the wrong subdivision by conducting a fresh survey in the property in subject, by considering his representation, dated 06.06.2025.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Karthika

¶26

For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mrs.K.Malathi, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

¶27

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.19365 of 2025

¶31

The Writ Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by fifth respondent, negativing the request of the petitioner, seeking survey of the property.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that his maternal grandfatherBalakrishnan purchased 2 acres 70 cents of land in Survey No.57/2 and 1 acre 55 cents of land in Survey No.60/3, in Seriyalur Inam Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. Patta for the said properties stands in the name of petitioner's maternal grandfather-Balakrishnan and one Sivabushanathammal. The petitioner's grandfather-Balakrishnan and his wife Saroja jointly executed a Will in the year 1998 in favour of their five daughters, including petitioner's mother. Based on the said document, the petitioner submitted an application for survey of the property and the same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 22872 of 2024, seeking survey of the property. The said writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to issue notice to petitioner and adjacent land owners, hold an enquiry and thereafter pass an order, either surveying the property or rejecting the request of the petitioner.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.19365 of 2025

¶36

Pursuant to the above direction issued by this Court, the fifth

¶37

respondent herein conducted an enquiry and negatived the request of the petitioner, on the ground that there is no sub-division in the name of the petitioner, and relegated the petitioner to work out his remedy before the civil court.

¶38

It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner's grandfather-Balakrishnan purchased 1 Hectare 26 Ares in the above said survey numbers and bequeathed the said property in favour of his five daughters. The petitioner is son of one of the daughters of the said Balakrishnan. The petitioner's share is not identified by metes and bounds. In these circumstances, the request made by the petitioner cannot be considered in the absence of identification of the petitioner's share by metes and bounds. It is for the petitioner to get his share partitioned in the manner known to law and then approach the authorities for surveying of the property.

¶39