Disposed¶32

Periyasamy v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Mandamus – Sub-division of property

Madras HC5 Jun 2026WP/18549/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.) disposed of WP No. 18549 of 2026 on 05-06-2026. Petitioner Periyasamy sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk, to act on the Revenue Divisional Officer's proceeding Moo.Mo. 7278/2025/A6 dated 17.02.2026 and his enquiry report for sub-division of property at Malaikadu, O Sowdhapuram, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. Court directed sub-division orders within eight weeks; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk) to take suitable steps to sub-divide the petitioner's property based on the enquiry report of the 1st respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks; no costs. ¶32

Periyasamy Vs The Revenue Divisional officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 18549 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

WP No. 18549 of 2026

¶7

Periyasamy S/o. Palani, No. 2/208, Malaikadu, O Sowdhapuram, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional office, Namakkal District.

¶11

The Tahsildar Rasipuram Taluk , Namakkal District.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to take further action based on the proceeding in Moo.Mo. 7278/ 2025/ A6 dated 17.02.2026 on the file of 1^st respondent.

¶14

For Petitioner(s):

¶15

Mr.K.Prasath

¶16

For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Pachaiyappan Government Counsel

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 18549 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to take further action based on the proceeding in Moo.Mo. 7278/ 2025/ A6 dated 17.02.2026 on the file of 1^st respondent.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner has given a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer / 2^nd respondent for sub-diving the property. The 2^nd respondent, after conducting enquiry, sent a report to the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders with regard to the sub-division. Since the 2^nd respondent has not taken any steps, the present writ petition is filed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the official respondents would submit that in the present case, since the enquiry was conducted and report has also been filed, they are in the process of passing orders on the petitioner’s application for subdivision.

¶24