Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J
Manish – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar, Chengalpattu Taluk and District – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Petitioners: Anirudh Krishnan
For the Respondents:S. Arumugam Government Advocate
Court issued mandamus directing revenue authority to consider and decide patta application on merits within six weeks, following quashing of prior land acquisition and erroneous revenue records, ensuring opportunity to parties.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Direction to revenue authorities to consider application for issuance of patta for land in respect of which prior acquisition proceedings were quashed by court order attaining finality - Petitioner claims absolute ownership by purchase and continuous possession - Revenue records erroneously reflecting government entity as patta holder - Application submitted for rectification and mutation - Authorities to consider application on merits after affording opportunity to necessary parties within specified time frame. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner purchased land through sale deed and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment. Government initiated acquisition proceedings subsequently quashed by court, order attaining finality upon dismissal of appeal. Revenue records wrongly show government entity as patta holder. Petitioner filed application for patta issuance and representation for mutation, which remain unconsidered.
Findings of Court:
First respondent directed to consider petitioner's application seeking issuance of patta and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all necessary parties, within six weeks from receipt of order.
Issues: Direction to revenue authorities to consider and dispose of application for patta in favour of petitioner within time frame.
Ratio Decidendi: Considering consent disposal at admission stage and fair submission by government counsel, court directs time-bound consideration of application in accordance with law after hearing parties, rectifying erroneous revenue records post quashing of acquisition.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court directs processing of application within six weeks. (Para 1 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's ownership claim after quashed acquisition and records error. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. parties submit for timely consideration of patta application. (Para 5 , 7) |
ORDER
Mr.S. Arumugam, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application dated 10.04.2026 for issuance of a Patta in favour of the Petitioner for land in Survey No. 535/1, Tirukkachur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and District, within a time frame. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the subject property, which was registered vide Sale Deed dated 07.03.1988 and he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. When that being so, an attempt was made by the Government to reintroduce the subject property by way of acquisition proceedings vide G.O. dated 23.04.1988.
4. It is further stated that pursuant to directions issued by this Court on 26.04.2007 in W.P. No.9531 of 1998, the said G.O. No.134 was quashed and subsequently the order dated 26.04.2007 has attained finality owing to dismissal of belated writ appeal on 14.09.2017. Thereafter, it came to light that in the revenue records, erroneously, it was reflected in the name of “Member Secretary, CMDA” as the Patta holder, which is illegal and arbitrary. Subsequently, he submitted an online application on 10.04.2026 seeking rectification of revenue records, and thereafter he submitted a representation to the respondents on 20.04.2026 with regard to mutation of patta in his favour. However, till date, neither his application nor his representation was considered by the respondents. Hence this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if a direction is issued by this Court to consider the petitioner’s application dated
10.04.2026, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents fairly submitted that the 1st respondent will consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law and suitable directions may be issued by this Court.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application dated 10.04.2026 seeking issuance of patta in his favour in respect of the subject property and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all necessary parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
