Molasi Village Panchayat, v. The Special Commissioner,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.11.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P. No.22185 of 2015 Molasi Village Panchayat Represented by President M.Vellimanu D/o Poosamani Molasi Village and post, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

.. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Special Commissioner Revenue Administration Department Ezhilagam, Chepauk. Chennai - 600 005

2. The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District

4. The Tahsildar, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District

5. Palaniappan

6. Shanmugam

7. Krishnaveni 1/6

8. Thangadurai

9. Sengottaiyan

10. Sengottiyan

11. Selvam

12. Palanisamy

13. Gandhimathi

14. Manivannan .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 15.05.2015 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.C. Prakasam For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. U. Bharanidharan Additional Government Pleader For Respondents 5 and 10 : Tapal Returned For Respondents 6 to 9 :Mr.G. Santhanam for T.L.Thirumalaisamy 2/6

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed to consider the petitioner representation dated 15.05.2015 and pass orders.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the president of the Molasi Village panchayat and there was a pond in that area. The said pond was classified as Patta Kuttai and the residents of the said area made a representation to change the classification as "Recognized as Minor Irrigation source". However during UDR scheme patta was issued to the individual persons for the entire pond area. Hence the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 15.05.2015 to cancel the patta. However the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner application for grant of patta was rejected by the District Revenue Officer. Hence the petitioner made an appeal before the Commissioner of land Administration.

3/6

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner has filed the appeal after the stipulated period hence the same came to be rejected vide order dated 11.10.2021.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly the facts of the case are not in dispute that the petitioner had made an application for cancelling the patta issued to third parties and the same was rejected. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner preferred a appeal before the Land Administration and the same was rejected as the petitioner failed to file the appeal before the stipulated period.

7. In view of the above fact as the petitioner failed to approach the appellate authority within the stipulated period the same came to be 4/6

rejected and the prayer sought for the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However the petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedy in the manner known to law.

23.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No msm 5/6

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

smn To

1. The Special Commissioner Revenue Administration Department Ezhilagam, Chepauk. Chennai - 600 005

2. The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District

4. The Tahsildar, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District 23.11.2022 6/6