Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K SURENDER
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Patta Passbook Act, 1983 s. 12
- Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 s. 12
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject property and he preferred an appeal dated 10.12.2025 before the first respondent, seeking cancellation of Patta No.1119 standing in the name of the third respondent in respect…
Judgment
W.P.(MD)No.2562 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 02.02.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDERW.P.(MD)No.2562 of 2026 Suyambulingam ... Petitioner -vs-1.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli District.
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Radhapuram and Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
Rathinapandian... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's appeal dated 10.12.2025 filed under Section 12 of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983. For Petitioner : Mr.R.MurugappanFor R1 and R2 : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader____________Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2562 of 2026ORDERThe Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's appeal dated 10.12.2025 filed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. 2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is hereby dispensed with.
Operative part
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject property and he preferred an appeal dated 10.12.2025 before the first respondent, seeking cancellation of Patta No.1119 standing in the name of the third respondent in respect of the subject property. Since the said appeal has not been considered till date, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.____________Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2562 of 20265. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner's appeal dated 10.12.2025 will be considered and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.6. Recording the aforesaid submission and without going into the merits of the matter, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 10.12.2025 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.NCC : Yes / No(K.SURENDER, J.)Index : Yes / No 02.02.2026smn2To:-1.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli District.____________Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2562 of 20262.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Radhapuram and Taluk, Tirunelveli District.____________Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2562 of 2026K.SURENDER , J. smn2W.P.(MD)No.2562 of 202602.02.2026____________Page 5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Patta Passbook Act, 1983 — s. 12; Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 — s. 12.
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.