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) 65480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Kanagarathinavel – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. – Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 31790 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A. Abdulkabur
For the Respondents:Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate for R1 to R4

Parties involved in property disputes are entitled to a fair hearing before any administrative decision on land records.

Headnote:In the matter of W.P(MD) No. 31790 of 2025, the court interprets Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning property rights. The petitioner claims ownership of land based on oral partition and seeks the removal of private respondents' names from the patta. The court orders the Revenue Divisional Officer to address the petitioner's appeal on its merits with due opportunity. Main issues revolve around the rightful inclusion of names in land records, affirming the necessity of a fair hearing before any decision. Ultimately, the court disposes the petition directing the consideration of merits without judgment on the ownership rights.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims ownership of land. (Para 1)
2. government advocate argues against petitioner's claim. (Para 2)
3. court directs consideration of appeal on merits. (Para 3)

O R D E R

The petitioner asserts that he is the owner of the land measuring 1 hectare and 93.5 ares in survey No.84/1B pursuant to an oral partition between himself and his siblings. After filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the alleged wrongful inclusion of the names of the fifth and sixth respondents in patta No.282, the petitioner seeks the early disposal of such appeal.

2. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 4. By relying on written instructions from the Tahsildar, he submits that the names of the private respondents were included based on the inclusion of the name of Subramania Nadar in the UDR 'A' Register. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner does not have a case for the deletion of the names of the private respondents. Without prejudice, he submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer would pass orders on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the private respondents.

3. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the private respondents herein. Because the merits have not been examined and on account of directing the second respondent to provide a reasonable opportunity to the private respondents, this Writ Petition is being disposed of without notice to the private respondents herein. No costs.

NCS : Yes/No 10.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The District Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk Office, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, O/o. the Village Administrative Officer, Vembar Village Vilathikulam Taluk Thoothukudi District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 31790 of 2025

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