Disposed

Veeramurugan v. The Assistant Director of Panchayat

Madras HC12 Nov 2025WP(MD)/32074/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a notice to hold an enquiry into the assessment of a specific property, directing the second respondent to pass a speaking order. The court directed the enquiry be completed within three months, noting the merits were bypassed as the fourth respondent was not heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue notice to petitioner and fourth respondent, hold enquiry into representation, and pass speaking order within three months.

Veeramurugan Vs The Assistant Director of Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

Veeramurugan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

2.The Block Development Officer, Thoothukudi Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai, Thoothukudi.

¶12

3.The Special Officer, Mapillaioorani Panchayat, Thoothukudi.

¶13

4.Jothi

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to conduct enquiry based on the communication in Na./Ka.UNI7/2733/2023-2 dated 26/05/2025 issued by the 1st respondent and to cancel the property tax assessment in assessment number 17163 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selva Adiya

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran, Government Advocate for R1 & R3. Mr.Muthumanickam for R2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Issuance of notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

¶23

2.The case of the writ petitioner is that the petition mentioned

¶24

property was purchased by one Melki Karvalho vide sale deed dated 31.03.1994 (Document No.604/1994). One Pooranam purchased the property from the legal heirs of the said Melki Karvalho vide sale deed dated 12.12.2022 (Document No.6260/2022). From the said Pooranam, the petitioner purchased the property vide sale deed dated 31.03.2023 (Document No.1846/2023). The grievance of the petitioner is that the property is however being assessed in the name of the fourth respondent who does not appear to have an iota of title. The petitioner has therefore

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

¶28

given an application seeking cancellation of the assessment being made

¶29

in the name of the fourth respondent and for making assessment in his name. The first respondent had given instructions to the second respondent to hold enquiry in this regard. The grievance of the petitioner is that enquiry is yet to be take off.

¶30

3.I direct the second respondent to issue notice to the writ petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and hold enquiry into the writ petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2025 and pass a speaking order in whose name, the petition mentioned property should be assessed. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date

¶31

of receipt of a copy of this order. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without putting the fourth respondent on notice, it is made clear that the merits of the matter have not not been gone into.

¶32

4.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶33

12.11.2025

¶34

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

¶38

To:

¶39

1.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Thoothukudi District.

¶40

2.The Block Development Officer, Thoothukudi Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai, Thoothukudi.

¶41

3.The Special Officer, Mapillaioorani Panchayat, Thoothukudi.

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

¶48

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶49

ias

¶50

W.P(MD)No.32074 of 2025

¶51

12.11.2025

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

Veeramurugan v. The Assistant Director of Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeramurugan v. The Assistant Director of Panchayat

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

Tvl. New Raja Agencies, Vs The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)

I.Abuthahir Vs The District Registrar

Vellaiyammal Vs The District Registrar

Tvl.Bernard Karuthudaiyan Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Asan Mohideen Sait alias S.Moideen Vaiscirahath Vs The District Registrar

Tvl Praveen Traders Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes