Disposed

Ponmani.K v. The Thasildhar

Madras HC15 Jul 2025WP(MD)/9382/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta holder sought a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to survey her land and fix boundaries on an unconsidered representation. The court directed her to file a proper online application with acknowledgement within two weeks and directed the Tahsildar to pass final orders within eight weeks after notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file online application; respondent to consider and pass final orders within eight weeks after notice.

Ponmani.K Vs The Thasildhar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9382 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.9382 of 2023

¶7

K.Ponmani ... Petitioner Vs The Thasildhar, Theni District, Theni. ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to survey the petitioner's land in Survey 231/6U (Plot No.15) situated at Unjampatti Village, Theni District, measuring about are 3602 square feet respectively and fix its boundaries as per the revenue records by considering the petitioner's application, dated 27.03.2023.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mrs.D.Saranya For Respondent : Mrs.K.Malathi, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(MD) No.9382 of 2023

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondent to survey the property situate in Survey No.231/6U, Unjampatti Village, Theni District, by considering her application, dated 27.03.2023.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was purchased by her under a registered sale deed, dated 09.03.2006. Patta for the said property was also issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta No. 4242. She submitted an instant representation before the respondent on 27.03.2023, seeking survey of the property. The same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶16

The Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent, would submit that the petitioner failed to submit online application and hence her request has not been considered.

¶17

In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the petitioner is directed to file proper online application and produce acknowledgement of the same before the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on submission of such online application, the respondent shall consider the same and pass final

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.9382 of 2023

¶21

orders on its own merits within a further period of eight weeks, after issuing notice to petitioner, neighbouring land owners, and other interested parties.

¶22

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶23

15.07.2025

¶24

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

¶25

dixit

¶26

To:

¶27

The Thasildhar, Theni District, Theni.

¶28

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.9382 of 2023

¶31

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶32

dixit

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.9382 of 2023

¶34

15.07.2025

¶35

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶36

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

Ponmani.K v. The Thasildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponmani.K v. The Thasildhar

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

Selvi Vs The District Collector

K.Muthiah Vs The Special District Revenue officer (Land Acquisition)

Eswaran.v Vs The District Collector

Arjunan. M Vs The District Collector

Purusothaman Vs Rajendran

A.Ramakrishnan, Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu