B.Ranjithkumar v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH B.Ranjithkumar S/o.Balu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District.

4.The Tahsildar, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri.

5.Nilaviyal Perumal Temple Ilakiyampatti, Collectorate Post, Dharmapuri District.

6.Krishnan S/o.Sagadeevan 7.Govindaraj S/o.Sagadeevan 1/4

8.Jayaraman S/o.Sagadeevan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to restore the patta in the name of i) Kolanthai Gounder, ii)Saminathan, iii) Munusamy, iv) Sevanthagounder v)Muniammal and vi) Kaveri in respect of the said property being all that piece and parcel of land comprised in 305/59 to an extent of 2.47 cents at Virupatchipuram Village, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader [R1 to R4] *****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to restore the patta in the name of the original owners of the property based on the representation made by the petitioner on 22.11.2024.

2. Heard Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

2/4

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the patta was originally granted in the name of the family members and all of a sudden, an entry was made in the remarks column by showing the name of a temple with effect from 10.10.2014. The petitioner wanted these remarks to be removed from the revenue records. Hence, the representation was made in this regard. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. There is no indication in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to why the petitioner has directly approached the second respondent seeking for removal of the entry made in the revenue records. The second respondent can act upon the representation only if such entry was made during the UDR scheme. Otherwise, the competent authority to deal with the document is the Tahsildar. Therefore, the second respondent shall consider the representation made by the petitioner on 22.11.2024 and if such entry was made in the remarks during the UDR scheme, the second respondent shall continue to deal with the representation after affording opportunity to the temple. If not, the second respondent shall remit the matter to the file of the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent shall conduct the enquiry after 3/4

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J gm affording opportunity to the temple and take a final decision. In any case, a final decision shall be taken either by the second respondent or by the fourth respondent within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

03.03.2025 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District.

4.The Tahsildar, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri.

4/4