Joint patta claims must be decided on merits after hearing applicants and examining relevant records.

The petitioners, owners of flats in Balaji Apartment, Anna Nagar, sought joint pattas with the other flat owners for the land allotted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, corresponding to their respective undivided shares under their sale deeds.

They stated that, following directions in earlier writ petitions, they submitted a representation dated 23 March 2026 seeking joint pattas, but their grievance remained unaddressed.

The State submitted that part of the property was said to be water-body land and that the land’s nature and extent required verification before any patta could issue.

1. Whether the Court should direct the Tahsildar to issue the petitioners joint pattas for their respective shares in the property

2. Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation after verifying the relevant records and affording them a hearing

The petitions invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus.

It directed the competent authority to decide the representation on its merits and in accordance with law, considering the Housing Board allotment, relevant records, survey report, and earlier orders, and after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioners were entitled to joint pattas, particularly in light of the State’s submission that part of the land might be a water body.

Instead, it left the land’s nature, extent, and the petitioners’ entitlement for the Tahsildar to verify and decide. The Court required that decision to take account of the Housing Board allotment, relevant records, survey report, and earlier orders, and that the petitioners receive a hearing.

The writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.