Disposed

Durai Pandi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC3 Dec 2025WP(MD)/9636/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought cancellation of a patta allegedly issued in error and consideration of the petitioner's representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Government Advocate agreed the representation would be considered. The court disposed of the petition directing an enquiry-based decision within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to decide representation dated 14.03.2023 by enquiry with hearing, within twelve weeks; no costs.

Durai Pandi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9636 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9636 of 2023

¶7

Durai Pandi ... Petitioner -vs1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Special Tahsildar (Natham Nilavari Thittam), Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.Sinkaram 5.Packiyam 6.Chandrasekaran ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to cancel the patta vide Patta No.2993 in Survey No.670/24C2 to an extent of 39 Sq. Meter, situated at

¶9

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶10

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

¶11

W.P.(MD)No.9636 of 2023

¶12

Kamuthi Village, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vadivel For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to cancel the Patta vide Patta No.2993 in Survey No. 670/24C2, measuring an extent of 39 sq. metres, situated at Kamuthi Village, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2023.

¶16

2 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶17

3 . According to the petitioner, Patta No.2993 in Survey No.670/24C2,

¶18

measuring 39 sq. metres at Kamuthi Village, has been erroneously issued to the respondents 4 to 6 and is liable to be cancelled. The petitioner has made a detailed representation dated 14.03.2023 to the first respondent requesting cancellation of

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.9636 of 2023

¶22

the said patta, but no action has been taken till date. The inaction on the part of

¶23

the first respondent is arbitrary and has forced the petitioner to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions.

¶24

4 . The petitioner submits that the respondents are duty-bound to consider

¶25

the representation and take a reasoned decision within a reasonable time. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to cancel the Patta and to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2023 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶26

5 . The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 submits

¶27

that the petitioner's representation will be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.

¶28

6 . Recording the above submission, and without expressing any opinion on

¶29

the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2023 on its

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.9636 of 2023

¶33

merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The representation

¶34

shall be considered and disposed of after conducting an enquiry. The first respondent is directed to provide reasonable opportunity during such enquiry to the petitioner and also to the other persons, who may be affected by such decision. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

NCC : Yes / No ( K.SURENDER, J .) Index : Yes / No 03.12.2025 smn2

¶36

To:-

¶37

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶38

2.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶39

3.The Special Tahsildar (Natham Nilavari Thittam), Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.9636 of 2023

¶43

K.SURENDER, J.

¶44

smn2

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.9636 of 2023

¶46

03.12.2025

¶47

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶48

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

Durai Pandi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai Pandi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Siva, Vs The District Collector

Murali Vs The District Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)

I.Salkamma Vs The Tahsildar

Jothiraj Vs The Assistant Collector

Chinnammal Vs The Thasildar

Sagunthala. N Vs The District Revenue Officer