Disposed¶26

Marakathambal v. Revenue Divisional officer

Madras HC9 Jan 2026WP/601/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta cancellation representation unconsidered; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Revenue Divisional Officer Dharapuram, Tiruppur; petitioner owner claiming patta wrongly issued in brother's name S.R.Kumarasamy; direction to adjudicate representation with hearing of objectors; 12-week compliance timeline; no costs; Tamil Nadu land records administration.

What did the court decide?

Respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram) directed to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representations dated 06.10.2025 and 05.11.2025 seeking cancellation of the patta standing in the name of S.R.Kumarasamy, after hearing objections of S.R.Kumarasamy and any third party deemed fit, within twelve weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; no costs awarded. ¶26

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.10.2025 and reminder dated 05.11.2025. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

No prejudice would be caused to the respondent by a direction to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law within a Court-fixed time frame, including after hearing S.R.Kumarasamy or other affected third parties.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representations seeking cancellation of the patta standing in the name of S.R.Kumarasamy, after hearing his objections and those of any third party deemed fit to be enquired, within twelve weeks of receipt of the order; no costs.

¶23

Key takeaways

The Court expressly reserved the merits, stating it expresses no opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representations dated 06.10.2025 and 05.11.2025.obiter¶22
The final orders were to be passed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J.) disposed of WP No. 601 of 2026, a writ of mandamus under Article 226 filed by Marakathambal, whose representations dated 06.10.2025 and reminder dated 05.11.2025 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram (Tiruppur District), seeking cancellation of a patta issued in the name of her brother S.R.Kumarasamy, had gone unconsidered. Finding no prejudice to the respondent, the Court directed final orders on merits and in accordance with law on both representations, after hearing objections of S.R.Kumarasamy and any other third party deemed fit to be enquired, within twelve weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 601 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

WP No. 601 of 2026

¶7

Marakathambal W/o.late Nataraja Moorthy, 8/63, Thirumalai Nayakam Palayam, Kanganayakan Palayam, Kattur Village, Pongalur, Palladam, Tiruppur- 641 667.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram Tiruppur District.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation given by the petitioner dated 06.10.2025 and reminder dated 05.11.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan For Respondent: Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Adovcate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondent to

¶16

consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025 and the reminder dated

¶17

05.11.2025, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 601 of 2026

¶20

2.The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the property more fully described in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. However, as seen from the documents filed along with this writ petition, the patta has been issued in the name of S.R.Kumarasamy, who is the brother of the petitioner. The petitioner had given the aforesaid representations to the respondent seeking for cancellation of said patta standing in the name of her brother S.R.Kumarasamy. Since the said representations have not been considered till date, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

¶21

3.No prejudice will be caused to the respondent if a direction is issued to consider the petitioner’s representation on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, after giving due consideration to the documents filed by the petitioner and after hearing the objections of S.R.Kumarasamy or any other third party, whom the respondent deems it fit to enquire.

¶22

4.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representations dated 06.10.2025 and 05.11.2025.

¶23

5.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representations dated 06.10.2025 and 05.11.2025, seeking for

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 601 of 2026

¶26

cancellation of patta standing in the name of S.R.Kumarasamy, after hearing the objections of S.R.Kumarasamy as well as any other third party whom the respondent deems it fit to enquire, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶27

09-01-2026

¶28

rst

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram Tiruppur District.

¶32

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

¶33