Madras HC Directs Tahsildar To Decide Objections To 1.12-Acre Subdivision, Leaving Merits Open In Pending Civil Suit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to consider the petitioners’ written submissions and pass orders in the pending subdivision proceedings

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Tahsildar, to consider the written submissions and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

It also directed

It did not grant the requested restraint against interference with possession; instead, it preserved the parties’ liberty to pursue their claims before the Civil Court or through remedies known to law.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioners sought a direction requiring the Tahsildar, Rasipuram, to decide proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 4722/2026/B5 after considering their written submissions dated 18 September 2026.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4

The proceedings concerned subdivision of land in Survey No. 129/3B, measuring 1.12 acres, at O. Sowdhapuram Village.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4

The petitioners also sought protection against interference with their possession based on an earlier order in W.P. No. 18549 of 2026.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4

They stated that they had challenged the subdivision in O.S. No. 138 of 2026, which was pending before the competent Civil Court.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to consider the petitioners’ written submissions and pass orders in the pending subdivision proceedings

p. 3 · ¶ 6

ii.2. Whether the Court should grant the requested restraint against interference with the petitioners’ possession while the proceedings and civil suit remained pending

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4, 6

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

p. 1

The Court cited no specific statute, precedent, or detailed legal test.

It directed the revenue authority to decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law, while leaving the parties free to pursue their rights and contentions before the Civil Court or through remedies otherwise available to them.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

04Reasoning

Because O.S. No. 138 of 2026 was already pending and challenged the same subdivision, the Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the dispute.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

It nevertheless directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioners’ written submissions and decide the administrative proceedings expeditiously and in accordance with law.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

The Court left the parties’ substantive rights and contentions to be pursued before the Civil Court or through other lawful remedies.

p. 3 · ¶ 6