IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 18952 of 2026
D.Govindaraj
S/o.Duraisamy,
D.No.103B, Mobiripatti Village
Harur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tashildar
Harur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Inspector of Police
Harur Police Station,
Harur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
..Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Muthusamy
For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Pachaiyappan, Govt’s counsel
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue petitioner a sub- divided Separate patta by measuring petitioner property comprised in Survey No.7/2, New Survey No.7/2A1(Patta No.270) admeasuring an extent of 0.50 cents out of 1acre 50 cents situated at Agraharam Tharappu, A.Thathampatty Village, Harur Sub- Registration District and Dharmapuri Registration District and fix a boundary stone and issue boundary certificate and Consequently directing the 2nd respondent to afford police protection during the measurement of the property by the 1st respondent
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's online application dated 10.02.2026.
2. Mr.B.Pachaiyappan, 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, the petitioner had made an application on 10.02.2026 before the respondents for sub-division of the subject property. However, the said application was not at all considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government's counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's representation was duly considered and rejected vide order dated 10.04.2026 based on the objection made by the petitioner's vendor for sub-division of the subject property.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection order was passed without any prior notice to the petitioner, which is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, he request to this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
8. In the case on hand, an application dated 10.02.2026 was filed by the petitioner seeking for sub-division of subject property. However, after filing of this petition, based on the objection raised by the petitioner's vendor, the said application was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 10.04.2026.
9. Now, it was contended by the petitioner that rejection order was passed without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner. In such case, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the rejection order, he can very well challenge the same in the manner known to law.
10. In view of the above, the Court directs the respondent to serve a copy of the rejection order dated 10.04.2026 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, it is up to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.