S.Pachamuthu, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.08.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No.21722 of 2018 S.Pachamuthu .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, 2.The Tahsildar, Salem West Taluk, 3.The Revenue Inspector, Thirumalai Giri, Salem West Taluk, .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to change the petitioner's name as S.Pachamuthu instead of Thangam C. in patta No.748, by considering his representation dated 02.06.2017 and report of 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramesh Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Mr.J.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, for a mandamus, directing the respondents to change his name as S.Pachamuthu instead of Thangam C. in patta No.748, by considering his representation dated 02.06.2017, based on the report of the third respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he owns Agricultural lands in Survey Nos.91/1B, 97/1A, 97/9C and 97/9E at

Maramangalathupatti Village, Salem West Taluk and he obtained patta for the lands comprised in Survey Nos.97/1A, 97/9C and 97/9E. However, the land in S.No.91/1B, a joint patta was issued and his name was wrongly mentioned as Thangam.C instead of C.Pachamuthu. Hence, he submitted a representation dated 02.06.2017 to the second respondent to rectify the mistake occurred in the records. After the submission of his representation, the second respondent called for the report from the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer, who in turn submitted their report in favour of the petitioner. However, the first respondent has not considered the same and passed an order. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on instructions submitted that the respondent authority are ready to consider the representation of the petitioner, if the petitioner is able to produce the necessary documents, to establish his claim, which has not been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to submit all the necessary documents before the respondents, along with a copy of this order, within in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the same. On such submission, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as all the necessary parties, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ms To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem,

2.The Tahsildar, Salem West Taluk, 3.The Revenue Inspector, Thirumalai Giri, Salem West Taluk, +1cc to Mr.M.Elango, Advocate, S.R.No. 58507 W.P.No.21722 of 2018 CA(CO) GN(18/09/2018)