Tahsildar must decide house-site patta record-update requests on merits after hearing within eight weeks.

The petitioners stated that they had received manual free house-site pattas on 18 November 2009 for plots in Natham Survey Nos. 172/6 and 181/45 to 181/54 at Arakandanallur Village.

They alleged that the online revenue records for their plots had not been updated, although records for other beneficiaries had been, and that this omission led the Sub-Registrar to withhold registration of a settlement deed pending verification by the revenue authorities.

The Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector had submitted favourable field inquiry reports on 21 July 2025, and the petitioners had made further representations, including one at a Jamabandi camp on 16 June 2026.

They sought a direction under Article 226 for the records to be updated and online e-pattas issued.

Whether the Court should direct the revenue authorities to consider the petitioners’ communications and representations concerning the unupdated online records for their allotted house sites.

Whether the Court should itself direct the updating of the records and issuance of e-pattas, or leave that determination to the revenue authority after inquiry.

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

It applies the principles that a public authority asked to decide a representation should consider it on its merits and in accordance with law, after providing a fair and full opportunity of hearing to the affected persons; any dispute concerning title or inter-se civil rights is for the competent Civil Court.

Given the limited relief sought and the State’s submission that the representation would be considered within a court-fixed timeframe, the Court declined to determine the petitioners’ entitlement to updated records or e-pattas on the merits.

Instead, it directed the Tahsildar to consider the Sub-Registrar’s communication dated 21 April 2025 together with the petitioners’ representations, examine the original 2009 allotment files and the favourable field inquiry reports, and provide a fair hearing to the petitioners and other concerned parties.

The Court left any title or inter-se civil-rights dispute to the competent Civil Court.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The order states both “No costs” and “Costs are made easy”.