Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
As a consequence, the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar for reconsideration
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 11.11.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.18610 of 2025 M.Rajendran ...Petitioner Vs1. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
The Zonal Deputy Thasildar, Zone II Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
The Head Surveyor, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
Bhuvaneswari5. Bharanitharan6. Parvatharajkumar7. Thillaimuthu8. Jeyanthi9. Tharani10. Malarvizhi11. Diviya1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Premnath13. Rohini Devi14. Tamilkodi15. Muthukumaran...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in file No.2025/0103/27/216450 dated 09.06.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1 to 3rd respondents to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of the property in survey No.SF.No.239/2B with an extent of 10 cents situated at Mandapam Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District as per the civil court decree. For Petitioner : M/s.R.ParanjothiFor Respondents: Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleaderfor R1 to R3 Mr.Y.Prakash for R4 to R14 ORDERAn order dated 09.06.2025 of the Tahsildar is challenged inter alia on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had succeeded in civil proceedings and that the order of the trial court was affirmed even by the Supreme Court. In those circumstances, learned counsel contends that the impugned order is unsustainable.2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Operative part
3. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 14 submits that a civil suit has been filed by the said respondents in O.S.No.13 of 2025. After pointing out that the said suit is for partition, he submits that no interference is called for with the impugned order. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, the reason for rejection is mentioned as “as per VAO's report court case O.S.No.13 of 2025”. No further particulars are provided with regard to the nature of the VAO's report or the nature of the suit. The said order can be characterised as unreasoned. For such reason, the order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. As a consequence, the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar for reconsideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 14, a speaking order shall be issued by the Tahsildar within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 11.11.2025 NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoRJR3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J. RJRTo1. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.2. The Zonal Deputy Thasildar, Zone II Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.3. The Head Surveyor, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.W.P.(MD)No.18610 of 202511.11.20254/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: As a consequence, the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar for reconsideration
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.