A.Beeran v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD Writ Petition No.9605 of 2025 A.Beeran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Tiruvannamalai.
3.Adhalath Khan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2024 for cancelling the settlement deed vide document No.3118/2015 dated 16.10.2015 registered at SRO, Thandarampet, Tiruvannamalai District, executed by the petitioner in favour of the third respondent.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Ambigapathi For Respondents 1 & 2 :
Mr.A.Anandan, Government Advocate Page No.1 of 6
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition to direct the respondents to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2024 for cancelling the settlement deed vide document No.3118/2015 dated 16.10.2015 registered at SRO, Thandarampet, Tiruvannamalai District, executed by the petitioner in favour of the third respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a senior citizen, worked in Saudi Arabia for more than 22 years and settled his family and children. He executed a settlement deed in 2015, transferring his agricultural land and house to his son, Adhalath Khan, based on the assurance of his son and his daughter-in-law that he would be taken care of. However, after the transfer, the petitioner faced neglect and mistreatment from his daughter-inlaw, who denied him food and shelter. Upon, informing his son, the petitioner was further threatened and forced out of his home. Left homeless and struggling for basic needs, he sought intervention from authorities in 2020 to reclaim his property. Despite attending an inquiry, no action was taken. A Page No.2 of 6
follow-up representation in 2024 was also ignored, leading to the present writ petition.
3. Though many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2024, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the second respondent has already initiated the enquiry proceedings and fixed the date of hearing on 28.03.2025.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's Page No.3 of 6
representation dated 12.06.2024, after giving due notice to the petitioner as well as the third respondent, opportunity of personal hearing and considering the documents filed by both the parties on merits, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs.
21.03.2025 vm Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No To:
1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Venkikal, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai Collector Office, Venkikal, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604.
Page No.4 of 6
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vm Page No.5 of 6
21.03.2025 Page No.6 of 6