G.Balaji v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH G.Balaji S/o.Govindaswamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector Chengalpet District 2.The District Revenue Officer Cehngalpet District 3.Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpet District 4.The Tahsildar, Tiruporur Talk, Chengalpet District.
5.Executive Officer Arulmigu Kandasamy Thirukoil, Thiruporur Tk, Chengalpet District.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's review application dated 30.08.2023 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent and restore the name of the petitioner for the land in Survey No.144 of an extent of 4 Acres and 29 cents situated at Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District within stipulated period as fixed by this Court on merits. 1/4
For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja Government Advocate [R1 to R4] Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate [R5] *****
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to deal with the review application submitted by the petitioner on 30.08.2023 wherein the petitioner has sought for cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent and to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records with respect to the subject property.
2. Heard Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for fifth respondent.
3. In the considered view of this Court, the second respondent has passed the earlier order dated 07.09.2022 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. As against the same, even in the proceedings of the second respondent, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner has to file an 2/4
appeal only before the Commissioner of Land Administration within a period of thirty days. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner has filed a review before the second respondent. The second respondent is not vested with the power of review and therefore, the second respondent cannot deal with the review application submitted by the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Administration within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the Commissioner of Land Administration shall deal with the same on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the fifth respondent and final orders shall be passed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the appeal petition from the petitioner. If the appeal is not filed within the time frame fixed by this Court, the petitioner will loose his right to challenge the order passed by the second respondent dated 07.09.2022.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J gm 3/4
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 18.03.2025 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm To
1. The District Collector Chengalpet District 2.The District Revenue Officer Cehngalpet District 3.Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpet District 4.The Tahsildar, Tiruporur Talk, Chengalpet District.
5.Executive Officer Arulmigu Kandasamy Thirukoil, Thiruporur Tk, Chengalpet District.
4/4