Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar to Consider Petitioner's Representation for Patta Inclusion Under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act, 1967. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for inclusion of his name in patta within twelve weeks, as the representation was pending for a long period without any action.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 85
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, V. Jayaraj, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents, namely the District Collector, Theni District, the Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, and the Village Administrative Officer, T.Meenatchipuram Village, to consider and dispose of his representation dated 17.04.2023 and consequently to direct the second respondent to add/include his name in Patta No.1550 concerning Survey Nos. 167/3A and 203/5B at T.Meenatchipuram Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. The petitioner acquired the properties from his father-in-law. After the demise of his father-in-law, his brother-in-laws attempted to evict him from the lands, forcing him to apply for conferment of title by patta under Section 4(2) and 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act, 1967 and Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969. The second respondent conducted an enquiry by issuing summons to the petitioner and his brother-in-laws. However, the representation remained pending. The court, after hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader who took notice for the respondents, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court also directed that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Consideration of Representation - The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for inclusion of his name in patta within a stipulated time, as the representation was pending for a long period without any action. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2023 for inclusion of his name in Patta No.1550.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2023 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order.

Law Points

  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Consideration of representation
  • Patta inclusion
  • Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act
  • 1967
  • Sections 4(2) and 5(2)
  • Rule 10 of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules
  • 1969
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 517

W.P(MD)NO.236 OF 2025

2025-01-07

N.MALA

2025:MHC:279

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Balaguri Swamy, For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Govt.Pleader

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, Office of the Village Administrative Officer, T.Meenatchipuram Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought direction to respondents to consider and dispose of his representation dated 17.04.2023 and consequently to direct the second respondent to add/include his name in Patta No.1550.

Filing Reason

Petitioner's representation for inclusion of his name in patta was pending without any action.

Issues

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2023.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that he acquired properties from his father-in-law and after his demise, brother-in-laws attempted to evict him, forcing him to apply for patta under the Act. Respondents' counsel took notice and consented to final disposal.

Ratio Decidendi

When a representation is pending for a long period without any action, the court can direct the authority to consider and dispose of the representation within a stipulated time.

Judgment Excerpts

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose the Petitioner’s representation, dated 17.4.2023 and consequently to direct the second respondent to add/include the Petitioner’s name in Patta NO.1550... The Petitioner acquired the properties in S.No.167/3A... from his father in law. The second respondent conducted an enquiry by issuing summons to the Petitioner and his brother’s in law.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date, taken up for final disposal at admission stage with consent of both parties.

Acts & Sections

  • Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act, 1967: 4(2), 5(2)
  • Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969: 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Life Conviction for Murder and Cruelty by Husband — Kerosene Burn Death of Wife Proved by Dying Declaration and Circumstantial Evidence. Conviction under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC confirmed as dying declaration was volunt...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Holds Second Revision Under Section 154 MCS Act Not Maintainable — Full Bench Overrules Shireen Sami Gadiali. The court ruled that a second revision under the same provision is not maintainable, relying on Supreme Court precedents...