Madras High Court
WP/38819/2026 of Pethakaragappa Vs the District Revenue officer on 27 October 2026
WP No. 38819 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WP No. 38819 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012210652026}
Pethakaragappa
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Revenue officer
Krishnagiri District,
2. The Sub collector
Hsour,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Tashildar
Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District,
4. Hemanth
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of petitioners representation, dated 02.07.2026 for cancellation of patta in the name of 4th respondent.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Sankar Special Government Pleader for R1
to R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2026, seeking cancellation of Patta No.1105 granted in favour of the fourth respondent.
WP No. 38819 of 2026
2. The petitioner claims that the property situated in Survey No.246/1 of Belathur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, originally belonged to his grandmother, Muniyammal, under a registered Will bearing Document No.23 of 1937, executed by his grandfather. According to the petitioner, his grandmother enjoyed the property measuring approximately 38 cents and, thereafter, the petitioner continued to enjoy the same. While so, the fourth respondent is alleged to have obtained Patta No.1105 from the third respondent in respect of the disputed property, despite having no right or entitlement thereto.
3. The petitioner states that he submitted a representation dated 09.10.2025 before the second respondent, which was registered as O.Mu.No.5964/2025/B3, dated 13.11.2025, and forwarded to the third respondent for a report regarding cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 02.07.2026, along with copies of the registered Will and other relevant revenue documents, seeking cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Since no orders have been passed on the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, despite repeated representations and the production of relevant documents in support of his claim, the second respondent has not taken any effective steps to consider the
WP No. 38819 of 2026
petitioner's request. Therefore, the learned counsel sought a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 02.07.2026 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the representation of the petitioner may be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, after verification of the relevant revenue records and the documents produced by the parties concerned.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the limited nature of the relief sought for in this writ petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2026 requires consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law. The petitioner relies upon a registered Will and other revenue documents in support of his claim, whereas the fourth respondent is stated to have obtained Patta No.1105 in respect of the disputed property. The rival claims require examination by the competent authority with reference to the relevant records and the objections, if any, raised by the parties concerned.
WP No. 38819 of 2026
8. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims or the title to the disputed property, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2026, seeking cancellation of Patta No.1105 granted in favour of the fourth respondent, after verifying the relevant revenue records, obtaining a report from the third respondent, if necessary, and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and other persons likely to be affected by the decision. Such exercise shall be completed and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the title to or ownership of the disputed property, and the second respondent shall independently consider the matter on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The petitioner is at liberty to produce all relevant documents in support of his claim, and the fourth respondent is also at liberty to submit his objections and supporting documents.
WP No. 38819 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. K.SURENDER J. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JAI To
1. The District Revenue officer Krishnagiri District,
2. The Sub collector Hsour, Krishnagiri District,
3. The Tashildar Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
WP No. 38819 of 2026
K.SURENDER J. JAI WP No. 38819 of 2026 27-10-2026