← Library
Madras High CourtWP/1506/2016disposed of

Chikka Muniappa, v. Asst. Director (Survey),

2016-01-19Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.1506 of 2016 Chikka Muniappa .. Petitioner Vs.

Assistant Director Office of District Collector Krishnagiri 2.The Sub Collector Hosur, Krishnagiri District 3.The Tahsildar Hosur Taluk Office, Hosur 4.Mr.Venkatramanappa 5.Narayanappa ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2015 for rectification of errors crept in patta No.379 and 300 in respect of lands in survey No.45/4D and 45/4A of Koladasapuram Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and issue patta to the petitioner within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Bharath Kumar.

For respondents : M/s.V.Subbiah, Spl.GP.

O R D E R

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

2.The petitioner would state that he was the owner of the land measuring 1.85.5 Hectares (4.50 acres) comprised in Survey No.45/4 of Koladasapuram village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. He sold an extent of 0.42.5 Hectares (1.05acres) in S.No.45/4 to the fourth respondent herein by a registered sale

deed dated 30.01.1994 in Document No.2596 of 1994 at Sub Registrar Office, Hosur.

3.The petitioner would further state that the third respondent issued a patta in favour of the fourth respondent wrongly to an extent of 0.50.5 Hectares in Survey No.45/4D instead of 0.42.5 Hectares. Subsequently, the land was subdivided in survey Nos.45/4 as 45/4A, 4B, 4C and 4D. 4.The petitioner claims that the fifth respondent has no right or title over the survey No.45/4A. The patta No.379 issued in favour of the fourth respondent for an extent of 0.50.5 hectares instead of 0.42.5 hectares including the 5th respondent as one of the pattadar is an erroneous entry by the third respondent.

Hence, the petitioner has made a representation dated 30.11.2015 to the respondents 2 and 3 to rectify the mistakes crept in the revenue records. Since no order has been passed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5.Heard the submissions of Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Subbiah, Special Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

6.This Court, taking into consideration the limited scope of prayer sought for by the petitioner and without going into the merits of the same, directs the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the respondents 4 and 5, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner. 7.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Assistant Director Office of District Collector Krishnagiri

2.The Sub Collector Hosur, Krishnagiri District 3.The Tahsildar Hosur Taluk Office, Hosur.

+1cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.3261 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.3298 W.P.No.1506 of 2016.

ctk(CO) srg(15/02/2016)