Ianantha Ezhilarasu v. The District Revenue Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.02.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN I Ananthan Exhilarasu ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Office, District Collectorate Building, Chengalpattu.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to rectify the mistakes crept in the "A" Register Year list in respect of the property of land comprised in Survey No.25/4A measuring an extent of Acre 2.02 cents situated at Thiruvadanthai Revenue Village, Kundrukkadu Hamlet Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District upon considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.10.2023 to rectify the mistakes crept in the "A" Register.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivazhagan For Respondent : Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to rectify the mistakes crept in the "A" Register Year list in respect of the property of land comprised in Survey No.25/4A, situated at Thiruvadanthai Revenue Village, Kundrukkadu Hamlet Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District upon considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.10.2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in S.No.25/4A at Thiruvadanthai Revenue Village. He acquired the said land by way of settlement deed dated 28.01.2023. The petitioner came to know that name of one Rajamanickam, who is no way connected to the subject property was found in "A" register during the UDR Scheme. Hence the petitioner made a representation dated 30.10.2023 before the respondent to rectify the mistake found in the "A" Register in respect of the land in question. The respondent has not considered the petitioner's representation so far. Hence the present writ petition.

4. Though the petitioner himself admitted that name of Rajamanickam was found in the 'A' Register and he has not impleaded the said Rajamanickam as respondent in the present writ petition. Without impleading the said Rajamanickam in the present writ petition, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. UDR Scheme has been implemented in the State during the year 1984-1985. After 40 years of implementation of UDR scheme, the petitioner has made the representation on 30.10.2023 before the respondent to rectify the error

found in the UDR year list. Further, This Court cannot decide the matter as to whether the petitioner is in possession or the said Rajamanickam is in possession in the subject property. The petitioner has to establish his right through oral and documentary evidence by approaching the Civil court and not by way of the writ petition. Since, it requires pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and trial, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry. Hence this Court cannot give any direction to the respondent with regard to the petitioner's representation. However, the petitioner can work out his remedy before the Civil Court by establishing his right, title and possession in the manner known to law.

5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

21.02.2024 mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

To The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Office, District Collectorate Building, Chengalpattu.

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa 21.02.2024