Disposed¶38

Kushmakumari v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC10 Jun 2026WP/19861/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ (mandamus, Art. 226): separate patta and sub-division for Plot No.22, S.No.84/1, Block No.23, Kainoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District; representations of 19.12.2023/04.11.2024/06.04.2026 ignored; separate-patta application implies survey/sub-division arrangements; separate patta if documents satisfactory, else joint patta with civil-court referral; 8-week deadline; disposed by Krishnan Ramasamy J., 10-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondent to treat the 06.04.2026 application as sufficient to commence sub-division; issue separate patta if satisfied with the documents, failing which issue a joint patta and refer parties to the appropriate Civil Court; entire exercise to be completed within 8 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. ¶38

Kushmakumari Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should consider the petitioners' representations dated 19.12.2023, 04.11.2024 & 06.04.2026 for issuance of separate patta to Plot No.22 in S.No.84/1, Block No.23, Kainoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

When an application is made for separate patta, the respondent authority is expected to make all necessary arrangements, including survey and sub-division.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's application dated 06.04.2026 suffices for the respondent to commence the sub-division process on the subject property.

¶36

Key takeaways

If the respondent is satisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner, a separate patta shall be issued in favour of the petitioners.ratio¶37
If there is any dispute as to title or possession, the respondent may instead issue a joint patta to both petitioners and refer them to the appropriate Civil Court.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Krishnan Ramasamy J.), WP No. 19861 of 2026 (and WMP No. 21197 of 2026), decided 10-06-2026 — Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus to direct the Tahsildar, Arakkonam to issue patta for Plot No.22 in S.No.84/1, Block No.23, Kainoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District, based on the RDO's letter dated 20.11.2024 (O.Mu. A2/3628/2024); representations dated 19.12.2023, 04.11.2024 and 06.04.2026 for separate patta had not been considered. The land was originally assigned to the first petitioner's husband, settled on her by settlement deed dated 16.12.2019, and she thereafter sold half share to the second petitioner by sale deed dated 14.11.2022. The Government contended that no request for sub-division had been made. The Court held that an application for separate patta ordinarily obliges the authority to make all necessary arrangements including survey and sub-division, and that the 06.04.2026 application suffices to commence sub-division. Directions issued: separate patta to be issued if the documents are satisfactory; otherwise a joint patta with referral to the appropriate Civil Court where title or possession is disputed; completion within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. Petition disposed of, no cost.

¶1

WP No. 19861 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

WP No. 19861 of 2026

¶7

Kushmakumari W/o.V.Madhavan, No.297, Walajah Main Road, Padmapuram Village, Sanurmallapuram Post, R.k.Pet Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶8

V.Nagarajulu S/o.late.Venkatesalu, No.6/154, Ramadass Nagar, Kainoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

the Revenue Divisional Officer Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

¶12

The Revenue Tahsildar Arakkonam Taluk, Arakkonam Ranipet District.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer:

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue patta to the petitioners Plot No.22 in S.No.84/1, Block No.23 Situated at kainoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District based on the letter of the 1st respondent dated 20.11.2024 in O.Mu. A2/ 3628/ 2024

¶16

__________ Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 19861 of 2026

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Krishnan For Respondent(s): Ms.Inthu Karunakaran, Govt's counsel,

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2023, 04.11.2024 & 06.04.2026.

¶22

Ms.Inthu Karunakaran, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

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

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the subject land was assigned to the 1^st petitioner's husband. Subsequently, the 1^st petitioner's husband had settled the said property in favour of the 1^st petitioner by virtue of settlement deed dated 16.12.2019. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner had sold half share of the property to the 2^nd petitioner with boundaries vide sale deed dated 14.11.2022. Under the circumstances, the representations were made by the petitioner on 19.12.2023, 04.11.2024 & 06.04.2026, for issuance of separate patta based on the aforesaid settlement

¶25

Page2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 19861 of 2026

¶28

deed and sale deed. However, the said representation was not at all considered by the respondents till date. Hence, this petition.

¶29

In reply, the learned Government's counsel for the respondents would submit that in this case, the applications were made only for the purpose of issuance of separate patta. However, no request was made with regard to subdivision of the subject property and hence, the respondents are not in a position to consider the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, he request to this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶30

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

¶31

In the case on hand, the representations were made by the petitioners on 19.12.2023, 04.11.2024 & 06.04.2026 for issuance of separate patta. However, the said representation was not at all considered by the respondents till date.

¶32

On the other hand, according to the respondents, the application was made by the petitioners only for the purpose of issuance of separate patta. However, no request was made with regard to sub-division of the subject property.

¶33

__________ Page3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 19861 of 2026

¶36

Normally, when an application was made for separate Patta, the respondent is supposed to make all the necessary arrangements, including the process of survey, sub-division, etc. In such case, the application filed by the petitioner on 06.04.2026 will be suffice to commence the process of subdivision at the subject property by the respondent.

¶37

If the respondent is satisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner, a separate Patta shall be issued in favour of the petitioners. If there is any dispute with regard to the title or possession of the property, the respondent can very well issue a joint Patta in favour of both the petitioners and refer the parties to approach an appropriate Civil Court. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38