Disposed

Devika v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Dec 2025WP(MD)/36058/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of her name and land revenue collection for a plot in Kanniyakumari District via writ of mandamus. Government Advocate agreed to consider the representation. Court disposed the petition directing the Tahsildar to consider it on merits within eight weeks after enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to consider representation dated 03.09.2024 on merits within eight weeks after enquiry; no costs.

Devika Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.36058 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.36058 of 2025

Devika

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, Kanniyakumari

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to mutate petitioner's name and collect land revenue to the property comprised in Town Survey No.C9/34/4, to an extent of 16 Cents 927 Sq.links in Padmanabhapuram B Village (formerly Kalkulam Village), Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.09.2024 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.36058 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to mutate the petitioner’s name and collect land revenue for the property comprised in Town Survey No.C9/34/4, to an extent of 16 cents 927 sq. links, in Padmanabhapuram B Village (formerly Kalkulam Village), Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 03.09.2024, within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶20

2 . By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶21

3 . According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the property comprised in Town Survey No.C9/34/4, measuring 16 cents 927 sq. links, situated in

¶22

_____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.36058 of 2025

¶25

Padmanabhapuram B Village (formerly Kalkulam Village), Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.09.2024, requesting the respondents 2 and 3 to mutate the petitioner's name in the land records and collect land revenue accordingly. Despite the submission of the representation, the respondents have failed to take any action, causing undue prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶26

4 . The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner's representation will be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.

¶27

5 . Recording the above submission, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.09.2024, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The representation shall be considered and disposed of after conducting an enquiry. The third respondent is directed to provide reasonable opportunity during such enquiry to

¶28

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.36058 of 2025

¶31

the petitioner, and also to the other persons, who may be affected by such

¶32

decision. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No smn2

¶34

( K.SURENDER, J .)

¶35

17.12.2025

¶36

To:-

¶37

1.The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, Kanniyakumari

¶38

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari District.

¶39

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanniyakumari District.

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.36058 of 2025

¶43

K.SURENDER, J.

¶44

smn2

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.36058 of 2025

¶46

17.12.2025

¶47

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶48

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

Devika v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devika v. The District Collector

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

A.Nagarajan Vs The Corporation Commissioner

P.Thangamani Vs K.Kavitha

A.Mahalingam Vs The District Collector

M.Jeyakumar Vs The Tahsildar

Somasundaram Vs The District Collector

Arulmigu Soundamman Thirukoil Vs Jeya Prakash