Ranjana Prakash Mehta v. District Revenue Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P No.7298 of 2020 Ranjana Prakash Mehta Petitioner vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate of Chennai, Singaravelar Maaligai, 62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai (South), Guindy Taluk Office Fampus, Chennai.
3. The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk Office, No.3, First Street, Kumaran Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 11.
4. Chellappan
5. Rajini
6. Krishnamurthy
7. Mangaiyarkarasi
8. Nathan
9. Pandiyarajan
10. Balaji
11. Vijayakumar Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2020 to cancel the patta in favour of the land grabbers, and consequently issue pattas to the petitioner to an extent of 8 grounds and 2203 sq.feet at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041, bearing Old Paimash Nos.1380,
1387, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1379 and old Survey No.223/2A1 A1 A2, and New Survey No.37/2. The above mentioned transaction was registered via Sale deed No.1842 of 1961, on 20.07.1961, and was registered in Volume No.608 in page No.388 in the records of the Sub-Registrar's Office in Saidapet, Chennai within a period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thirugnanam For Respondents: Mr.A.Aruldass Government Advocate for R1 to R3
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03.03.2020 wherein the petitioner is seeking for the cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the respondents 4 to 11.
2.Mr.Thirugnanam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an old lady aged about 85 years and she is the absolute owner of the property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 20.07.1961. The learned counsel submitted that the property measures an extent of eight grounds and 2203 Sq. ft. 3.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was admitted in hospital to undergo a heart surgery and therefore, she was not in a position to personally take care of the property. Taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner, the private respondents, who according to the petitioner are land grabbers, have managed to fabricate documents and obtain patta in their favour. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the 2nd respondent viz.
, the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the respondents 4 to 11. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate direction. 4.Heard Mr.A.Arul Dass, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 5 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the limited relief that has been sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03.03.
pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent along with a copy of the representation dated 03.03.2020 and a copy of this order.
6.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssr To
1. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate of Chennai, Singaravelar Maaligai, 62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai (South), Guindy Taluk Office Fampus, Chennai.
3. The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk Office, No.3, First Street, Kumaran Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 11.
W.P No.7298 of 2020 VG II(CO) GN(26/06/2020)