Disposed¶24

S.Rathanam v. the Tashildar

Madras HC12 Jan 2026WP/985/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

patta issuance; consideration of representation dated 09.12.2025; Tashildar Anthiyur Taluk Erode District; RSO 15; survey no 450/2B; 0.39.5 Cents; Ottanthottam; Ennamangalam Village; writ petition disposed by direction to pass final orders within 12 weeks; hearing objections of neighbouring land owners; no opinion on merits; no costs; Madras High Court; Justice Abdul Quddhose; Government Advocate Mr.S.Arumugam; counsel Mr.P.Vijendran.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent (Tashildar, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District) to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner's representation dated 09.12.2025 seeking issuance of patta for survey no 450/2B, after hearing objections of neighbouring land owners or other third parties deemed fit to enquire, within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs.

S.Rathanam Vs the Tashildar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Tashildar, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District) should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.12.2025 and issue patta to the petitioner in survey no 450/2B (admeasuring 0.39.5 Cents) at Ottanthottam, Ennamangalam Village, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District, in view of RSO 15.

¶12

Court's answer

No prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the petitioner's representation is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing objections of neighbouring land owners or any other third party whom the respondent deems fit to enquire, within a time frame fixed by the Court.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner's representation seeking issuance of patta for the property described in the prayer.

¶24

Key takeaways

The final orders are to be passed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing objections of neighbouring land owners or other third parties deemed fit to enquire; no costs.ratio¶28
The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation seeking issuance of patta.obiter¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J., 12-01-2026) disposed of WP No. 985 of 2026 filed by S. Rathanam seeking a direction to the Tashildar, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District to consider his representation dated 09.12.2025 and issue patta in survey no 450/2B (0.39.5 Cents) at Ottanthottam, Ennamangalam Village, in view of RSO 15. Holding that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, the Court directed that final orders be passed on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing objections of neighbouring land owners or any other third party deemed fit to enquire, within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. The Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits of the representation. No costs awarded.

¶1

WP No. 985 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

WP No. 985 of 2026

S.Rathanam

..Petitioner(s)

The Tashildar,Anthiyur Taluk office, Anthiyur Taluk Erode District

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Direct the respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 09.12.2025 and consequenlty to issue patta to the petitioner in survey no 450/2B admeasuring 0.39.5 Cents which is situated at Ottanthottam, Ennamangalam Village, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District in view of the RSO 15.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Arumugam Govt Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent

¶16

to issue patta in favour of the petitioner for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.12.2025, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

__________Page 1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 985 of 2026

¶20

2.The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the aforementioned property. He has submitted a representation with the respondent seeking for issuance of patta in his name. Since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶21

3.Mr.S.Arumugam, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶22

4.No prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the petitioner’s representation as stated supra, is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of the neighbouring land owners or any other third party, if any, whom the respondent deems it fit to enquire, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

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

¶24

6.Accordingly, 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 representation seeking for issuance of patta for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, after hearing the objections of the neighbouring land owners or any other third party, if any,

¶25

__________Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 985 of 2026

¶28

whom the 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.

¶29

12-01-2026

¶30

VGA