Dismissed

P.Vasanthi v. the Sub Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC5 Mar 2026WP/8135/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the sub-division of property by directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, an available appellate authority, instead of quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur, within two weeks from receipt of this order.

P.Vasanthi Vs the Sub Collector cum Revenue Divisional… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 8135 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 8135 of 2026 AND WMP NOs.8811 & 8813 OF 2026

P.Vasanthi

Petitioner(s)

THE SUB COLLECTOR cum Revenue Divisional Officer District Collectorate Office, Tiruppur District.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar

¶11

Tiruppur North Taluk Office, Tiruppur District.

¶12

3.The Village Administrative Officer Tiruppur North VAO Office, Tiruppur District.

¶13

4.The Head Surveyor -Tiruppur North, Tiruppur North Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶14

5.R. Kasiviswanathan @ Viswanathan

6.V.T. Anandan

7.R. Bommuraj

8.G. Arunachalam

9.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur. (R9 suo motu impleaded by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2026 by AQJ)

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 8135 of 2026

¶22

PRAYER

¶23

calling for the records of the impugned order issued by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.4543/2022 dated 27.12.2022 quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.2, to restore the Patta No.3507 originally issued to the land comprised in Survey No.161/1C1A4B of Thottipalayam Village, Tiruppur North Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sanjay N Gandhi

¶25

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Jayaprakash Govt Advocate For R1 to R4 and R9 R5 to R8 - notice dispensed with

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the first respondent, cancelling the sub division of the property earlier done in favour of the eighth respondent, who is the vendor of the petitioner.

¶28

2.The petitioner claims that she came to know about the impugned order

¶29

dated 27.12.2022 passed by the first respondent only in November 2025.

¶30

3.Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy available to the petitioner if aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the first respondent.

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 8135 of 2026

¶33

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit on instructions

¶34

that the petitioner is willing to file an appeal as against the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the first respondent.

¶35

5.Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and 9. Since no adverse order is being passed against respondents 5 to 8, notice to respondents 5 to 8 is dispensed with by this Court.

¶36

6.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents has also not raised any serious objection if the petitioner is allowed to file an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur, the competent appellate authority.

¶37

7.Since DRO, Tiruppur is not a party in this writ petition, this Court, by exercising its suo motu powers, impleads DRO, Tiruppur as the party ninth respondent in this writ petition. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment.

¶38

8.No prejudice would be caused to the official respondents if the petitioner is directed to file an appeal within the stipulated time before the

¶39

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

¶40

WP No. 8135 of 2026

¶41

District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur and a direction is issued to the District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur to dispose of the said appeal, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of respondents 5 to 8 and any

¶42

other third party whom the ninth respondent deems it fit to enquire and by adhering to the principles of natural justice, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶43

9.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file an appeal as against the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the first respondent before the newly impleaded ninth respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said appeal within the stipulated time, the newly impleaded ninth respondent shall entertain the said appeal and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of respondents 5 to 8 and any other third party whom the ninth respondent deems it fit to enquire and by adhering to the principles of natural justice, within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. No costs.

¶44

05-03-2026

¶45

vga

¶46

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

¶47

WP No. 8135 of 2026

¶48

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

¶49

WP No. 8135 of 2026

¶50

¶51

1.THE SUB COLLECTOR cum Revenue Divisional Officer District Collectorate Office, Tiruppur District.

¶52

2.The Tahsildar Tiruppur North Taluk Office, Tiruppur District.

¶53

3.The Village Administrative Officer Tiruppur North VAO Office, Tiruppur District.

¶54

4.The Head Surveyor -Tiruppur North, Tiruppur North Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶55

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

¶56

WP No. 8135 of 2026

¶57

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

¶58

vga

¶59

WP No. 8135 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 8811 OF 2026,WMP NO. 8813 OF 2026

¶60

05-03-2026

¶61

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

P.Vasanthi v. the Sub Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vasanthi v. the Sub Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sellamuthu Vs the Sub Registrar

S.Ponnusamy Vs The Sub Registrar

V.Ezhumalai Vs the Inspector General of Registration

S.Rajagounder Vs The Tahsildhar

A.P.K.Tamilarasan Vs The District collector / Chairperson

C.Madhappan Vs the District Collector