Disposed

R.Vincent Raj v. the Collector

Madras HC12 Mar 2026WP/9040/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking alteration of revenue records to show a survey number as a public pathway instead of Odai. The court directed the Collector to pass final orders on the petitioner's representation on merits within twelve weeks, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to pass final orders on the representation dated 27.01.2026 within twelve weeks.

R.Vincent Raj Vs the Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.03.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

R.Vincent Raj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶11

2.The Thasildar, Panruti, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

3.The Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Annagramam Panchayat Union, Annagramam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶13

4.The Executive Officer, Sathipattu Panchayat, Sathipattu, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to alter the revenue records in respect of S.No.147/- in Nadu Sathipattu Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, showing it as a pathway.

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate [R1 & R2] Mr.R.Siddharth Additional Government Pleader [R3 & R4]

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to alter

¶23

the classification of the property morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition in the revenue records as “public pathway” instead of “Odai”.

¶24

2. The petitioner had given a representation along with supporting

¶25

documents on 27.01.2026 to the respondents for the aforesaid purpose. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶26

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

¶27

notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.R.Siddharth, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4.

¶28

Page No.2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

¶31

4. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner’s representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the supporting document produced by the petitioner, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶32

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

¶33

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the 1 st respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner’s representation, dated 27.01.2026 seeking to alter the classification of the property morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition as a “public pathway” instead of “Odai”, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

¶34

Page No.3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

¶37

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶38

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

12.03.2026

¶40

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

¶41

Page No.4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

¶44

¶45

1.The Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶46

2.The Thasildar, Panruti, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶47

3.The Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Annagramam Panchayat Union, Annagramam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶48

4.The Executive Officer, Sathipattu Panchayat, Sathipattu, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶49

Page No.5 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

¶52

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶53

¶54

W.P.No.9040 of 2026

¶55

12.03.2026

¶56

Page No.6 of 6

¶57

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

R.Vincent Raj v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vincent Raj v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansari Vs The Sub Registrar

P.Dhanjayan Vs The Sub Registrar

J.Nalina Vs The Commissioner

Kandan @ Periyasamy Vs the Tahsildhar

Bhaskaran C Vs The District collector

K.R.Vanaja Vs the Tahsildar