Alagumeenal S v. The Commissioner

ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

01.09.2025.

¶2Heard Mr.G.R.Balakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vidhyasagar, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶3The claim of the petitioner is that the property originally belonged to one Juttu V. Kuppusamy Iyer, and by a registered deed of family arrangement dated 27.07.1997, the property was partitioned and allotted in two portions to one J.S. Meera and one J.K. Santharam. Thereafter, with respect to the portion of J.S. Meera, a release deed was executed by the other heirs in favour of J.S. Meera on 12.07.1991. Subsequently, the property was sold to one M. Vasanthal vide registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 7505 of 1999 dated 16.09.1999. On

06.05.2014, the said M. Vasanthal passed away, and thereafter the property devolved upon her legal heirs.

¶4It is further stated that on 19.06.2022, the husband of M. Vasanthal, namely N. Manickam, also died. Thereafter, the petitioner's brother, Natarajan, executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner, being his sister. The revenue records were also mutated in the name of the petitioner.

¶5In the above circumstances, when the petitioner sought transfer of property tax in her name, the same was rejected on the ground that she had not produced sufficient documents, as the property tax records originally stand in the name of J.S. Nirmala.

¶6Learned counsel appearing for the Madurai Corporation submitted that since the property tax records stand in the name of J.S. Nirmala, unless documents directly establishing the petitioner's link of title to J.S. Nirmala are produced, the authorities are not in a position to consider the request.

¶7I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶8It can be seen that, with reference to the said J.S. Nirmala, the petitioner is in possession of the certified copy of the registered family arrangement deed. In the opinion of this Court, the same would be sufficient. It is also evident that there is no dispute with reference to the said J.S. Nirmala or any person claiming through her.

¶9It is also contended by the petitioner that, due to efflux of time, she is not in a position to contact her vendor's vendor, J.S. Meera, or her sister or other family members.

¶10In view of the same, the writ petition is ordered on the following terms:- i. The impugned communication dated 01.09.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter shall remanded back to the file of the 1st respondent. ii. The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of the family arrangement dated 27.07.1997 and the copies of the subsequent deeds raising the title upon which the same shall be considered and the name change as prayed for shall be affected, if there is no other impediment. iii. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the a copy of the order. iv. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.

11.06.2026 rgm D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

, J.

rgm To

¶1The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai.

¶2The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-4 (South), Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 625 009. and W.M.P(MD)No.11802 of 2026

11.06.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 11.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.11802 of 2026 S.Alagumeenal ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-4 (South), Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 625 009. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Z4/B5/004441/2025 dated 01.09.2025, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to effect the name transfer in the property tax, drinking water, and underground drainage connections for the property situated at Door No.16/1, Sami Achari Lane, Ward No.47, Madurai Corporation in favor of the petitioner, and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Balakumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar Standing Counsel