Disposed¶21

M.Shanmugam v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC30 Apr 2026WP(MD)/8081/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; patta cancellation; implementation of RDO Devakkottai order Moo.Mu/A1/6371/2012 dated 03.05.2013; Tahsildar Karaikudi Taluk; Sivagangai District; petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026; petitioner only a Power of Attorney holder; verification of continuing existence of power of attorney; compliance within twelve weeks; WP(MD) No. 8081 of 2026; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; S. Srimathy J.; disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with operative directions: petitioner to submit his Power of Attorney; respondents to confirm whether the power is still in existence and thereafter implement the 1st respondent's order dated 03.05.2013, the whole exercise to be completed within twelve weeks; no order as to costs. ¶21

M.Shanmugam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar) should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026. +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

As counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner is only a Power of Attorney holder, the petitioner is directed to submit his Power of Attorney before the respondents, and the respondents shall confirm whether the power is still in existence.

¶20

Key takeaways

Thereafter, the respondents shall implement the order of the 1st respondent dated 03.05.2013.ratio¶20
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (S. Srimathy, J.), WP(MD) No. 8081 of 2026, disposed on 30-04-2026: Writ of Mandamus sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026 and to take steps to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai) in Moo.Mu/A1/6371/2012 dated 03.05.2013, whereby it was directed to consider and cancel the patta standing in the name of other individuals. The Government Advocate contended that the petitioner is only a Power of Attorney holder. The court directed the petitioner to submit his Power of Attorney before the respondents, the respondents to confirm whether the power is still in existence, and thereafter to implement the RDO's order dated 03.05.2013, the entire exercise to be completed within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30-04-2026 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶3

WP(MD) NO. 8081 of 2026

M.Shanmugam

Petitioner(s)

The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Devakkottai.

¶8

The Tahsildar Office of The Tahsildar Karaikudi Taluk Karaikudi Sivagangai District-621 211

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Padma Boopathi for Mr.T.Muthukumar

¶11

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Oliraja, Government Advocate Prayer:

¶12

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026 and consequently take steps to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent in Moo.Mu/A1/6371/2012 dated 03.05.2013.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to

¶15

direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026

¶16

and consequently take steps to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent in Moo.Mu/A1/6371/2012 dated 03.05.2013.

¶17

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

¶18

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's claim was considered by the RDO as early as 03.05.2013. In the said order it is directed to consider and cancel the patta which stands in the name of the other individuals. In spite of the said order, the Tahsildar has not implemented the order. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶19

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is only a Power of Attorney.

¶20

4.Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit his Power of Attorney before the respondents and the respondents shall confirm whether the power is still in existence. Thereafter, the respondents shall implement the order of the 1st respondent, dated 03.05.2013. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

30-04-2026

Tmg

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

¶26