Disposed¶30

V.Periyasamy v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC8 Jun 2026WP/18965/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta transfer; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Tahsildar Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District; Survey No 93/13, Sirunesalur village; online application No 2025/N105/18/476609 dated 10.09.2025; representation disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2025; dispute over extent of property; order not served; direction to serve copy within one week; petitioner free to challenge; disposed of, no costs; Madras High Court; Justice Krishnan Ramasamy; decision dated 08-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to serve a copy of the order dated 13.11.2025 on the petitioner within one week from receipt of a copy of this order, leaving the petitioner free to challenge that order in the manner known to law; no costs. ¶30

V.Periyasamy Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 18965 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 18965 of 2026

¶6

V.Periyasamy S/o Velan, Eyyanur Village and Post, Kallakurichi Taluk and District

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The Tahsildar Veppur Taluk, Veppur, Cuddalore District

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to transfer the patta in the name of the petitioner for the land in Survey No 93/13, situated at Sirunesalur village, Veppur Taluk Cuddalore District in pursuance to the petitioners online application No 2025/ N105/ 18/ 476609 dated 10.09.2025

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Pachaiyappan, Govt’s counsel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's online application dated 10.09.2025.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 18965 of 2026

¶19

Mr.B.Pachaiyappan, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal in the stage of admission itself.

¶21

Today, the learned Government's counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's representation was already considered and disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2025. Since there was a dispute with regard to the extent of the property, the respondents are not in position to pass orders for issuance of patta, pertaining to the subject property in favour of the petitioner. Hence, he requests this Court to close this petition.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the respondents was not at all served to the petitioner till date. Hence, he requests this Court to pass orders.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 18965 of 2026

¶27

In view of the above, the respondent is directed to serve a copy of the

¶28

order dated 13.11.2025 to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the said order, it is up to

¶29

the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶30