← Library
Madras High CourtWP/8714/2021disposed of

P.Sathyanarayanan v. Assistant Settlement Officer (North)

2021-04-08Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.04.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.No. 8714 of 2021 P.Sathyanarayanan, S/o. Purushothaman Reddy

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Office of Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

2. The District Collector, Chennai District, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

...Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose the application dated 22.10.2016 for correction of typographical error in respect of 'A' register extract in respect of property in Survey No.16/7, and 16/18 of Alandur Village, previously Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepuram District presently Alandur Taluk, Chennai District within a time period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Seshachari For Respondents : Mr.M.Manigopi, Govt. Advocate

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for correction of typographical error in respect of 'A' register extract in respect of property in Survey No.16/7 and 16/18 of Alandur Village, Chennai.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property in Survey No.16/7 and 16/18 in Alandur Village, Chennai belongs to his grandfather one L.Devarajalu Reddiar and originally, his name was reflected in 'A' register extract as 'Ve. Deva Reddiar'. Subsequently, his name was corrected as 'L. Deva Reddiar'. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has submitted the application to the 2nd respondent to correct his grandfather's name in 'A' register extract as 'L.Devarajalu Reddiar' on 22.06.20216. Thereafter, he has made several reminders. But, so far, his application was not considered and the name of his grandfather was not corrected in the 'A' register extract. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Mr.M.Manigopi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents would submit that they will consider the petitioner's application within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Hence, he would submit that suitable orders may be passed.

4. I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate and perused the records carefully.

5. Considering the limited prayer sought in the Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application and to pass suitable orders on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpp To

1. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Office of Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

2. The District Collector, Chennai District, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

W.P.No. 8714 of 2021 PMK(CO) KKV/02/06/2021