Disposed¶20

Sumathi v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC15 Sept 2025WP(MD)/24494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Separate patta; survey and boundary stones; representation dated 24.07.2025; rejection on ground of erroneous survey numbers and erroneous sub division numbers (S.Nos. 149/4A2A1A, 149/5A1A); Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District; writ of mandamus under Article 226; writ petition held infructuous and disposed of; liberty to challenge rejection order; no costs; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.; decision dated 15.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty left open to the petitioner to challenge the order of rejection in accordance with law. No costs. ¶20

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

¶1

W.P(MD)NO.24494 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.24494 of 2025

Sumathi

... Petitioner

The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to survey the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.149/4, 149/5, 155/2A1, 155/3, 158/1C and 158/2 measuring a total extent of 975 sq.ft. and Survey Nos.149/4, 149/5, 155/2A1, 155/3, 158/1C, 158/2 and 155/2A1, measuring an extent of 876 sq.ft. area situated at Kallanai Villalge, Vaadipatti Taluk, Madurai District and mark boundary stones and issue separate patta based on the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2025 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnamorthy For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthu Manikkam, Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

1/3

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)NO.24494 of 2025

¶17

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks consideration of the representation for grant of separate patta.

¶18

Learned Government Advocate has placed on record an online communication rejecting the request on the grounds that erroneous survey numbers and erroneous sub division numbers in respect of S.Nos. 149/4A2A1A and 149/5A1A were mentioned.

¶19