logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1479 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP No. 2764 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Parties : R. Vasantha Versus The District Collector, Chengalpattu & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: D. Senthilkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, R.P. Murugan Raja, Govt Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 03-02-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
- The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of Patta No. 218, issued in the name of the late Balaraman Pillai, and directed issuance of a separate patta to the petitioner and legal heirs.
- The petition is based on a representation dated 03‑11‑2025 submitted to the third respondent, which the petitioner alleges was not considered.
- The Government Advocate accepted notice for respondents 1‑4; notice to respondents 5‑6 was dispensed with.
- The Court held that no prejudice would be caused to respondents 5‑6 and ordered the third respondent to decide the representation after hearing objections from respondents 5‑6 and any other interested parties.
- The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation.
- The third respondent was directed to pass a final order within twelve weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Directing the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Petitioners representation dated 03.11.2025, by deleting the land in survey No.98/3, Karunilam Village, measuring 0.24.50 hectares, from Patta No.218 standing in the name of Late. Mr. Balaraman Pillai, and issue a separate Patta in favour of the Petitioner and other legal heirs within a stipulated time.)

1. This writ petition has been filed to cancel patta No.218 for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition standing in the name of the father of the respondents 5 and 6, one late Balaraman Pillai based on the petitioner’s representation dated 03.11.2025 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner claims that the father of the respondents 5 and 6 was erroneously and illegally issued patta No.218 for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition. The petitioner seeks for cancellation of patta No.218 standing in the name of one late Balaraman Pillai, who is the father of the respondents 5 and 6. Since the petitioner’s representation dated 03.11.2025, seeking for cancellation of patta No.218 standing in the name of late Balaraman Pillai, was not considered by the third respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Mr. R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 5 and 6, notice to the respondents 5 and 6 is dispensed with by this Court.

4. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner’s representation dated 03.11.2025, seeking for cancellation of patta No.218 standing in the name of one late Balaraman Pillai, who is the father of the respondents 5 and 6, is considered on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the objections of the respondents 5 and 6 as well as any other third party whom the third respondent deems it fit to enquire within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

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

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the third respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 03.11.2025, seeking for cancellation of patta No.218, standing in the name of late Balaraman Pillai, who is the father of the respondents 5 and 6 for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing the objections of the respondents 5 and 6 as well as any other third party whom the third respondent deems it fit to enquire

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal