RAJENDRAN vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50655

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

WP No. 18835 of 2026

Rajendran
S/o. Perumal,
No. 52 Bhoopathi Gounder Street,
Natrampalli , Natrampalli Taluk,
Tirupattur district
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector
Tirupattur ,
Tirupattur district
2. The Tahsildar
Natrampalli Taluk,
Tirupattur district
..Respondent(s)

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider petitioners online application for Sub Division and Transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner in Can No. 133361131104466 and application No. 2026/ 0105/ 36/ 005557 dated 16.03.2026 for the petitioners property situated in Tirupattur district, Natrampalli Taluk, Thiriyalam village in Survey No. 83/1A1 to the extent of 2.70 cents and in Survey No. 83/1A1 47.35 cents and the well along with 5 HP Electric motor and its pathways within stipulated period and pass

For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Rashmiga, for Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Guruprasad, Govt’s counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's online application dated 16.03.2026.

2. Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal in the stage of admission itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, 2/5th portion of the subject property was originally purchased by the petitioner on 29.12.2025. Now, he filed an online application dated 16.03.2026 for sub division of the said property. However, the said application was not at all considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

5. In reply, the learned Government's counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in this case, the petitioner had purchased the undivided portion of land and hence, the respondent cannot conduct survey and sub-divide the subject property without the consent of joint pattadharars. Further, he would submit that no such consent was obtained and produced by the petitioner before the respondents. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, a perusal of the sale deed dated 29.12.2025 would show that the petitioner had purchased the undivided portion of subject property. In such case, as rightly submitted by the respondents, without obtaining consent from the joint pattadharars, the respondents will not be in a position to conduct survey and sub-divide the subject property and issue patta in favour of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to make proper representation before the respondents, along with the consent obtained from all the joint pattadharars for sub-division of the subject property. Upon receipt of petitioner's fresh representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks therefrom. If there is any dispute on the part of joint pattadharars in giving consent for sub-division, the petitioner can very well approach any appropriate Civil Court by way of filing a suit for partition.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document