Vasantha Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Rejection Order passed by the third espondent through SMS dated 18.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind and consequently direct the third respondent

¶18

Page No. 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.1733 of 2026

¶21

to rectify the erroneous patta entry standing in the name of Thevaraj/husband of the fourth respondent in Patta No.2639 for Survey No. 138/8B, Puliyankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk by conducting enquiry within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner : M/s.C.Geetha For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed by the third respondent through SMS dated 18.09.2025, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and for nonapplication of mind and consequently direct the third respondent to rectify the erroneous patta entry standing in the name of Thevaraj, husband of the fourth respondent, in Patta No.2639 in respect of Survey No.138/8B, Puliyankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, after conducting an enquiry, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

____________ Page No. 2 of 6_

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.1733 of 2026

¶29

With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself, dispensing with the notice to the fourth respondent as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against her.

¶30

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent, vide the impugned order, rejected the petitioner’s request for rectification of the erroneous patta entry standing in the name of Thevaraj, husband of the fourth respondent, in Patta No. 2639 in respect of Survey No.138/8B, Puliyankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, without any basis.

¶31

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents would submit that the reason for rejecting the petitioner’s request was that the original documents were neither uploaded nor provided.

¶32

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to

¶33

____________ Page No. 3 of 6_

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.1733 of 2026

¶36

provide the original documents and further submits that the petitioner will upload or provide the original documents.

¶37

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents would submit that if the petitioner uploads the original documents, the petitioner’s request will be considered on merits and that since the petitioner’s application has already been disposed of, the petitioner may file a fresh application along with the original documents.

¶38

Recording the aforesaid submissions, this Court directs that in

¶39

the event of the petitioner filing a fresh application and uploading the required original documents, the third respondent shall consider the petitioner’s request on merits. Such application shall be disposed of within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of the said application. It is needless to state that before passing any order, the petitioner, the fourth respondent and any other persons who may be affected by such decision shall be given an opportunity of hearing and of filing any required documents.

¶40

____________ Page No. 4 of 6_

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.1733 of 2026

¶43