← Library
Madras High CourtWP/11528/2016disposed of

Ramu v. Tahsildar

2016-03-29Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah2 pages

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.03.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.11528 of 2016 1.Ramu 2.Thamizharasan ... Petitioners vs.

The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore District.

... Respondent Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 19.12.2015 sent by the petitioners.

For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Gururaj For Respondent :

Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondent to pass orders on their representation dated 19.12.2015.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the properties bearing S.Nos.273/12A Hec. 0.02.95, 273/12B Hec. 0.00.37 and 273/12C Hec. 0.02.68 in Poovanikuppam Village, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District belong to them. The said properties are ancestral properties and the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the entries in the revenue records in respect of the said properties have not been properly made, taking advantage of the same, private parties attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the said properties. Therefore, the petitioners filed a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

suit O.S.No.494 of 2010 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and in the said suit, a decree was passed in their favour. However, though the petitioners prayed for alteration of the revenue records in their name, the said Court refused to grant the same stating that such relief cannot be granted by the civil Court. Since it is the respondent, who has to alter the revenue records, the petitioners presented an application before the respondent on 19.12.2015 seeking transfer of patta. But, the same was not considered by the respondent. Hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to pass orders on their representation dated 19.12.2015.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondent.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 19.12.2015 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners as well as to the necessary parties, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the claim made by the petitioners and it is for the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners strictly on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(J) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore District.

+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Gururaj, Advocate, SR 19477 + 1 cc to Govt.Pleader, High Court, Madras SR 19775 msm(co) prk22/4 W.P.No.11528 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/