K.Kasthuri F/40 Years v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28-4-2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN WRIT PETITION No.12839 of 2015 K.Kasthuri .. Petitioner vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri 2.The Tahsildar Dharmapuri 3.C.Ramasamy Naidu 4.R.Kavitha 5.D.Anuradha .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner dated 27.1.2005 within a specified period.

For Petitioner : Ms.Sasikala Ramadoss For Respondents : Mr.N.Roofus Abraham Government Advocate for RR1 & 2

ORDER

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

2.The petitioner claims that the land admeasuring to an extent of 24,337 square feet, was belonging to her father and grandfather and some of the said lands were sold to one Karunakaran Chettiar under Document No.1128/1967 and Karunakaran Chettiar, in turn, sold a portion of the land admeasuring to an extent of 1,222 1⁄2 square feet, to one Ramasamy Naidu by means of a registered document bearing No.1579/1980, and one Ranganathan, son of Ramasamy, purchased the house/land, admeasuring to an extent of 1,215 square feet, in Survey No.402/B1-2, from Karunakaran Chettiar under the registered Document No.1580/1980.

3.According to the petitioner, the land admeasuring to an extent of 2,437 square feet in Survey No.402, is yet to be subdivided. The petitioner would further state that when she applied for patta, she came to know that the alleged mortgage https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

created by Ramasamy Naidu on 31.8.2001, finds a place in the Encumbrance Certificate. She would further claim that the patta itself has been issued fraudulently in the name of one D.Anuradha, in patta No.3224, with regard to Survey No.402/1B, and the petitioner, in this regard, submitted an appeal to the first respondent on 27.1.2015, which was followed by an application under the Right To Information Act, and since she has not been favoured with any response, came forward to file this writ petition. 4.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.N.Roofus Abraham, learned Government Advocate, who accepted notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

5.This Court, without going into the merits of the representation/appeal memorandum dated 27.1.2015, directs the first respondent to consider the said representation/appeal memorandum, in accordance with law, after putting on notice, the respondents 3 to 5, and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner as well as to the persons concerned. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS V ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar nsv To:

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri 2.The Tahsildar Dharmapuri 1 cc to Mr.V. Bhiman, Advocate, Sr. 23824 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 23842 W.P.No.12839 of 2015 PUR (CO) kk 18/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/