Patta claims must be decided after hearing the petitioner and all legal heirs.

The petitioner sought patta for Natham Survey No. 464/18, measuring 0.00.5 Ares, claiming that the property had been in his family’s possession and enjoyment for several years. His father, Karuthan, had earlier obtained an order in W.P.(MD) No. 19833 of 2022 directing the Tahsildar to issue patta in the names of Karuthan’s legal heirs. After his father’s death, the petitioner represented on 21 May 2026 for patta in his own name, stating that the other legal heirs agreed. As the representation remained undecided, he filed the present writ petition.

The Government Pleader submitted that the representation would be considered in accordance with law.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direct mandamus directing the Tahsildar to grant patta in his name based on the earlier order and his representation

2. Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and, if so, subject to what procedure and timeframe

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

The Court did not cite any statute or precedent laying down a substantive rule governing entitlement to patta. It directed the competent authority to decide the representation on its merits and in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner and the relevant legal heirs a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner was substantively entitled to patta or whether the earlier order required patta to be issued in his name alone. In light of the Government Pleader’s submission that the representation would be considered, the Court confined relief to requiring the Tahsildar to make a decision on the representation.

Because that decision could affect the interests of the deceased Karuthan’s legal heirs, it required a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the petitioner and those heirs identified in the order.

It directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21 May 2026 and pass final orders on its merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and the legal heirs of Karuthan impleaded as respondents 4 to 9, within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.