V.Chinnaiyan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17..06..2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Writ Petition No.11499 of 2021 V.Chinnaiyan ... Petitioner -Versus1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.
2.The Tahsildar, Thenkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Soolikunda Village, Baliganur Post, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
4.O.Muniyappan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to struck off the name of the 4th respondent from the revenue records of 72, Soolikunda village, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri, with regard to S.NO.241/2A measuring an extent of 1 Acre and insert the name of the petitioner for the same based on the representation dated 18.02.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, GA for RR1 to 3
ORDER
[This matter has been heard through video conference] This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner
dated 18.02.2021 requesting to strike of the name of the 4th respondent from the revenue records of 72, Soolikunda village, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri, with regard to S.NO.241/2A measuring an extent of 1 Acre and insert the name of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims that his father P.Venkatraman owned a total extent of 4 Acres and 95 cents comprised in S.No.241/1A, 241/1B, 241/1C of Soolikunda Village, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District and he was granted patta also for the same. The revenue records in respect of the above land also stood in the name of his father. After his father, according to the petitioner, he has been been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance. While so, he has come across that the name of the 4th respondent has been wrongly mentioned as the owner of the land measuring an extent of 1 Acre comprised in S.No.241/2A. Therefore, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent to delete the name of the 4th respondent and insert the name of the petitioner as the owner of the land. The grievance of the petitioner is that representation made by him in this regard has not been considered so far. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and also perused the records carefully.
4. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though larger prayer is sought for in the writ petition, it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.02.2021.
5. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the private respondents is not necessary and therefore, the notice as against the 4th respondent is dispensed with.
6. In the light of the abovesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.02.2021 after giving notice to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent and all other interested parties and take appropriate decision
thereof on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kmk To 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.
2.The Tahsildar, Thenkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Soolikunda Village, Baliganur Post, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
+1cc to Mr.M.Selvam, Advocate Sr.28200 Writ Petition No.11499 of 2021 ln[co] srg 28/07/2021