Disposed

Mohammed Abdullah v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC16 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25266/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct survey and demarcation of his land in Survey No.363/1B1 based on a sale deed and patta. The Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the survey request within twelve weeks after notice to the petitioner and adjacent landowner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1-2 to consider the survey request and act within twelve weeks after notice and hearing; notice to fourth respondent dispensed with; no costs.

Mohammed Abdullah Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 16.09.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.25266 of 2025

Mohammed Abdullah

...Petitioner

1.The Tahsildar, Mudukulathoor Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

2.The Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office, Mudukulathoor Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Keelathuval Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

4.Bose

¶13

....Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 2 to carry out survey and demarcate by fixing the four boundaries of petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.363/1B1 measuring 0.72.00 Ares situated at Puluthikulam Village, Sathanur Group, Mudukulathoor Taluk, Ramanathapuram District on the basis of prescribed fees being made vide challan dated 11.08.2025 with the assistance of 3rd respondent and consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2025 within stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate(Crl.side) for R3

¶18

ORDER

¶19

By relying on sale deed dated 26.06.2023 and the patta No.3309 in the

¶20

name of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for survey of the lands in S.No. 363/1B1 and approached this Court since such application was not acted upon.

¶21

2.Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. He submits that the petitioner's request for survey would be considered and disposed of after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein.

¶22

3.The petitioner has placed on record sale deed dated 26.06.2023 and patta No.3309. On the basis of these documents, a case is made out to consider the petitioner's request for survey. Since the fourth respondent appears to be the owner of the adjacent land, it is necessary to provide a reasonable opportunity to the fourth respondent. In view of this direction, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with in this writ petition.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

4.Accordingly, without making any observations on the merits, this writ petition stands disposed of by directing the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's request for survey and take necessary action within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after putting the petitioner and the fourth respondent on notice and providing them a reasonable opportunity. No costs.

¶26

16.09.2025

¶27

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶28

¶29

1.The Tahsildar, Mudukulathoor Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office, Mudukulathoor Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Keelathuval Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶33

RJR

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.25266 of 2025

¶35

16.09.2025

¶36

4/4

¶37

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

Mohammed Abdullah v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdullah v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalanjiyam Vs The District Revenue Officer

Mari Vs The District Collector

T.Pasumpon Vs The Tashildhar

Malayala Sastha Ayyanar Temple Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Thukkaiyannan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Noorjahan Begam Vs The Inspector General of Registration