IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE AND WMP NO. 952 OF 2026

1. Abhinay Mehta 2. Abhishek Mehta Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District collector Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu

2.The District Revenue officer Office of the District Revenue officer, Chengalpattu District

3.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028

4.The Revenue Divisional officer Office of the Revenue Divisional officer, Chengalpattu Division, Chengalpattu District

5.The Tahsildar Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District

6.The District Registrar Chengalpattu District Registrar office, 7.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar office,Navalur, 8.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar office-Thiruporurm

9.Vignesh Babu

10.Usha Respondent(s)

PRAYER Directing the respondents 1 -8 to consider and dispose of petitioner representation dated 8.11.2025 and directing the respondents to take necessary action including cancellation of patta No.1921 cancellation of sub division

99/13B4B For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Ravichander,sgp For R1 To R8 N D/w - R9 and R10

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 8 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 08.11.2025, seeking to cancel patta No.1921 issued in favour of the ninth respondent.

2. The petitioner claims that based on a decree passed by the Civil Court in a partition suit, shares were allotted to the respective parties in the said suit. The petitioner was one of the defendants, who was also allotted an undivided share. Aggrieved by the partition decree, the aggrieved parties have preferred a first appeal, which is still pending. According to the petitioner, despite the pendency of the appeal, the respondents 9 and 10 have obtained patta No.1921 eventhough no subdivision of the properties has been carried out. The petitioner therefore has given a representation on 08.11.2025 to the official respondents, seeking for cancellation of patta No.1921 issued in favour of the ninth respondent and has also sought for cancellation of the settlement deed executed by the tenth respondent in favour of the ninth respondent.

3. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid representation dated 08.11.2025 given by the petitioner, a reply has been received from the sixth respondent, stating that with regard to the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of patta and for subdivision, enquiry will be conducted after hearing the objections of the respondents 9 and 10. However, in so far as the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of the settlement deed is concerned, the sixth respondent in his reply has informed that the petitioner will have to approach the Civil Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is now satisfied if a direction is issued to the fourth respondent to conduct an enquiry with regard to the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of patta and for subdivision and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the objections of the respondents 9 and 10. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if such a direction is issued.

5. Mr. D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 8. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 9 and 10, notice to the respondents 9 and 10 is dispensed with by this Court.

6. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the fourth respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 08.11.2025, in so far as the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of the patta No.1921 standing in the name of the ninth respondent and for subdivision after hearing the objections of the respondents 9 and 10 as well as any