SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
POORNIMA W/o.Late Manoharan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, District Collector Office, Salem District – Respondent
WP No. 41721 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.M.Packianathan Easter for M/s.Easter Legal
For the Respondents:Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate for R1 and R2

Proper jurisdiction is required for property-related grievances, necessitating appeals to the relevant authority.

Headnote:The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a Mandamus for the 1st respondent to consider the representation for sub-division of property and issuance of separate patta. The court observes that an appeal before the RDO is necessary due to the lack of jurisdiction for the 1st respondent in this matter. Liberty is granted to file an appeal for appropriate relief. The writ petition is consequently disposed of with the above directions.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks sub-division of property. (Para 1)
2. counsel for both parties heard. (Para 2)
3. jurisdiction issues require appeal to rdo. (Para 3)
4. writ petition disposed of with directions. (Para 4)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner and his brother wherein they are seeking for the sub-division of the subject property and for issuance of separate patta in the name of the petitioner and other legal heirs with respect to the subject property.

2. Heard Mr.A.M.Packianathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Naveen Kumar , learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.

3. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent has added the names of respondents 3, 5 to 7 in the patta and that they are trying to get separate patta in their name. In such a scenario, the petitioner and other legal heirs must file an appeal before the RDO under the Patta Passbook Act and instead, a revision petition has been filed before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is not vested with any such jurisdiction.

4. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioner and other legal heirs to file an appeal before the concerned RDO and seek for the appropriate relief.

5. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top