Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 18.12.2025 and cancel the inclusion of the name of Mrs. Rajeshwari in Patta No.1964 and patta No. 2315 in respect of Survey Nos.643/4A4 and 643/1A (Old Survey No.404A), Modakurichi Village, Erode District.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 18.12.2025 and cancel the inclusion of the name of Mrs. Rajeshwari in Patta No.1964 and patta No. 2315 in respect of Survey Nos.643/4A4 and 643/1A (Old Survey No.404A), Modakurichi Village, Erode District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that originally the property in Survey Nos. 643/4A4 and 643/1A (Old Survey No.404A), Modakurichi Village, Erode District belongs to one Subburaya Gounder thereafter, it was settled in favour of the Smt.Devi Palaniswamy by way of registered settlement deed bearing Document No.3518 of 1969 on 29.10.1969. Subsequently, a deed of partnership was executed on 03.11.1975 and the property was surrendered to a partnership firm. The partnership firm was dissolved on 07.01.1976 and the petitioner company / “Kariakali Turmeric and Trades Private Limited”, which was formed on 07.01.1976 was taken over all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm with effect from 11.02.1976. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner Company was struck off in the year 2018 and thereafter, it was restored in the year 2024. By taking advantage of this struck off, the patta for the subject property was illegally issued in favour of the Smt.Devi Palaniswamy. The learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner Company was restored with effect from the year 2024, the property automatically stands in the name of the Company alone therefore, the patta cannot be transferred in favour of any individuals.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that necessary corrections will be made and new patta will be issued in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

6. It is made clear that once the property stands in the name of the Company, even if it is dissolved and struck off, the name of the owner cannot be changed. Now the petitioner / Company has been restored, the property always belongs to the Company alone and not belongs to any individuals, unless otherwise the same is disposed of in accordance with law.

7. In such being the case, it is on the part of the Official respondents to pass appropriate orders for changing the name in the patta in favour of the petitioner / Company by considering the petitioner’s representation. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 18.12.2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by issuing patta in the name of the petitioner / Company.

8. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.