Madras High CourtWP/13175/2015disposed of

N.Dilli, v. The Principal Secretary &

2015-04-29Honourable Mr Justice M. Sathyanarayanan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.04.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.13175 of 2015

1. N.Dilli S/o.Narayanasamy Naidu

2. Pattu D/o.Narayanasamy Naidu ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Settlement Officer, Office of the Settlement Officer, Ezhilagam, Chennai.

3. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Kanchipuram District.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.

5. The Tahsildar, (Additional Headquarters), Thiruporur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 06.01.2015 made by the petitioner to correct the entry made in the revenue records in respect of the property situated in Survey No.254/2 at No.19, Puduppakkam Village, Tirupporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Kanagasundaram For Respondents : Mr.S.Pattabiraman Government Advocate

O R D E R

By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 06.01.2015 to the respondents, praying for reversal of entries contained in the revenue records / settlement register, pertains to Survey No.254/2, comprised in Pudupakkam Village, Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, followed by which the Revenue Divisional Officer, has directed the Tahsildar, Thiruporur Taluk, to conduct proper enquiry and send his report and the District Collector, in his letter dated 04.02.2015, has also required the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet, to take appropriate action on the petitions submitted by the petitioners. The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that in spite of such a direction, no order has been passed and hence, they came forward to file this Writ Petition.

3. Heard the submissions of Mr.D.Kanagasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Pattabiram, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice for respondents.

4. This Court, taking into consideration the limited scope of prayer sought for by the petitioners and without entering upon the merits of petitioners' representation, directs the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of the said representation in accordance with law, after putting on notice the concerned persons and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner as well as to the concerned persons.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. gm/ds s/d- Assistant Registrar( V ) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To