Writ Petition No. 593 of 2025 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Considering the limited nature of the relief sought, the writ petition is allowed and a Mandamus is issued to the fourth respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner dated 21
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The Thasildar Denkanikottai Taluk Office Denkanikottai Krishnagiri....RespondentsPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2024 and thereby direct the respondents to issue patta in…
Judgment
WP.No.593 of 2025In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 10.1.2025Coram :The Honourable Ms.Justice P.T.ASHAWrit Petition No.593 of 2025V.Therthagiri...PetitionerVs1. The District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.
The District Revenue Officer District Revenue Office Krishnagiri.
The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Denkanikottai Division Krishnagiri.
The Thasildar Denkanikottai Taluk Office Denkanikottai Krishnagiri....RespondentsPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2024 and thereby direct the respondents to issue patta in respect of the property situated at Anumathapuram Village, Irudhukottai Post, Denkanikottai 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.593 of 2025 Taluk, Krishnagiri District comprised in S.No.289/3A to an extent of 1.50 cents in the name of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time. For Petitioner : Mr.G.SelvarajFor Respondents: Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, AGPORDERSeeking a direction to the fourth respondent to consider his representation dated 21.10.2024 for the issuance of patta in respect of the property measuring 1.50 cents in S.No.289/3A, Anumathapuram Village, Irudhukottai Post, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, the petitioner is before this Court.2.
Operative part
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondents.3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property has been classified as podukal land. The petitioner's father in law was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of his father in law, the subject property devolved upon the petitioner, who is also in possession and enjoyment by constructing a house in the subject property and obtaining an electricity connection. He is residing there 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.593 of 2025for the past 30 years. The petitioner sent a representation dated 21.10.2024 to the respondents seeking to issue a patta in respect of the subject property. However, the same has not yet been considered. Hence the writ petition. 4. Considering the limited nature of the relief sought, the writ petition is allowed and a Mandamus is issued to the fourth respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner dated 21.10.2024 for the issuance of patta in respect of the subject property on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. 10.1.2025To1. The District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.2. The District Revenue Officer District Revenue Office Krishnagiri.3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Denkanikottai Division Krishnagiri.4. The Thasildar Denkanikottai Taluk Office Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.593 of 2025P.T.ASHA,JRSWP.No.593 of 202510.1.20254/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Considering the limited nature of the relief sought, the writ petition is allowed and a Mandamus is issued to the fourth respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner dated 21
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.