C.Anjana Reddy Vs The District Revenue officer

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondents to cancel the UDR patta issued to the 4 th to 9 th Respondent, property

¶21

Page No.1 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.16053 of 2026

¶24

situated at No.27, Kempachathiram Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishangiri District, comprised in (a) S.No.13/3, to an extent of 39.50 Ares (97 cents), (b) S.No.13/5, to an extent of 0.23.00 Ares (57 cents), (c) S.No.13/2, to an extent of 0.30.50 Ares (75 cents), and issued for grant of patta in the petitioner favour for the property by considering the petitioner representation dated 2.06.2024 .

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sellapandian For Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam Government Advocate [R1 to R3] Notice dispensed with [R4 to R9] *****

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1 st respondent to

¶28

cancel the UDR patta issued in the names of the respondents 4 to 9 for the properties morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, based on

¶29

the petitioner’s representation, dated 02.06.2024, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

2. According to the petitioner, illegally, the respondents 4 to 9

¶31

have obtained UDR patta in their names for the properties morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition. The petitioner seeks cancellation of the UDR patta issued in favour of the respondents 4 to 9

¶32

Page No.2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.16053 of 2026

¶35

for the properties morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition. He had given a representation on 02.06.2024 to the respondents 1 to 3 for the aforesaid purpose. Since the same has not been considered by the official respondents till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶36

3. Mr.S.Arumugam, learned Government Advocate, accepts

¶37

notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 4 to 9 in this writ petition, notice to the respondents 4 to 9 is dispensed with by this Court.

¶38

4. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner’s representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner and after hearing the objections of the respondents 4 to 9 as well as any other party, whom the 2 nd respondent deems it fit to enquire, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.

¶39

Page No.3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.16053 of 2026

¶42

5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the 2 nd respondent

¶43

to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner’s representation, dated 02.06.2024 seeking cancellation of UDR patta issued in favour of the respondents 4 to 9 for the properties morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition, after giving due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner and after hearing the objections, if any, from the respondents 4 to 9 as well as any other party, whom the 2 nd respondent deems it fit to enquire, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

6. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

24.04.2026

¶47

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp

¶48

Page No.4 of 6

¶49

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