Disposed¶28

Gopi Muniyappa, v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Jan 2026WP/50737/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta/assignment for pathway land; S.No. 87/2 Kelamangalam Village Krishnagiri District; representation dated 29.11.2025 via legal notice; Tahsildar Denkanikottai directed to pass final orders within 12 weeks after hearing respondents 4 and 5 and third parties; writ disposed, no opinion on merits, no costs; Madras High Court, Abdul Quddhose J., 07-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent (Tahsildar, Denkanikottai) to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2025, after hearing objections of respondents 4 and 5 and any other third party deemed fit to enquire, within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶28

Gopi Muniyappa, Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents 1 to 3 should be directed not to grant any patta/assignment for the pathway land in S.No. 87/2, Kelamangalam Village, Krishnagiri District, as sought in the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2025.

¶14

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent (Tahsildar, Denkanikottai) to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2025 requesting the official respondents not to grant any patta/assignment for the pathway land, after hearing the objections of respondents 4 and 5 and any other third party whom the second respondent deems fit to enquire, within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation; the direction is confined to securing consideration of the representation.

¶27

Key takeaways

Notice to private respondents 4 and 5 was dispensed with, since no adverse order was being passed against them.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J.), WP No. 50737 of 2025, decided 07-01-2026: Gopi Muniyappa sought a direction to the District Collector (Krishnagiri), Tahsildar (Denkanikottai) and District Revenue Officer (Dharmapuri) not to grant any patta/assignment for pathway land in S.No. 87/2, Kelamangalam Village, Krishnagiri District, relying on his representation dated 29.11.2025 sent through legal notice, which had not been considered. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the second respondent (Tahsildar) to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the representation, after hearing the objections of private respondents 4 and 5 (K.Ramesh Babu and K.Prakash) and any other third party deemed fit to enquire, within 12 weeks. Notice to respondents 4 and 5 was dispensed with as no adverse order was passed against them. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 50737 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 50737 of 2025

Gopi Muniyappa

Petitioner(s)

The District Collector Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶11

4.K.Ramesh Babu 5.K.Prakash

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

Directing the respondents 1-3 to not to grant any patta/assignment for the pathway land in S.No. 87/2, Kelamangalam Village, Krishnagiri District based on the representation dated 29.11.2025.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.C.Vishwanth For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Jayaprakash Govt Advocate For R1 to R3

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 50737 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to grant any patta/assignment for the pathway land, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.

¶20

2.The petitioner claims that the only access available to the petitioner for reaching the property is the pathway land, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, which is also used by the respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, the petitioner has given a representation on 29.11.2025 through a legal notice to the respondents 1 to 3 not to grant any patta/assignment for the said pathway. Since the same has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶21

3.Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on

¶22

behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondents 4 and 5, notice to the respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with in this writ petition.

¶23

4.No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner's representation is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 50737 of 2025

¶26

the objections of the respondents 4 and 5 and any other third party whom the second respondent deems it fit to enquire.

¶27

5.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.

¶28

6.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 29.11.2025 requesting the official respondents not to grant any patta/assignment for the pathway land, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, after hearing the objections of the respondents 4 and 5 and any other third party whom the second respondent deems it fit to enquire within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

07-01-2026

vga

1.The District Collector Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶33

2.The Tahsildar Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.

¶34

3.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶35