K.Manavalan v. The Tahsildar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH K.Manavalan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Tiruppathur Taluk, Thirupathur, Tiruppathur District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Thirupathur, Thirupathur District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 27.12.2024 rejecting the application of the petitioner in GDP petition No.10652567 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry on the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2024 with regard to rectification of defects in the updating of registry cases in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.385, Revenue (Public-3) Department dated 17.08.2024. For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Rathanavel For Respondents :

Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

1/4

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 27.12.2024 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and to rectify the defects that had crept in during the UDR Scheme. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject property belongs to the petitioner and the patta was also issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta No.6225. During the UDR Scheme, the revenue authorities had mistakenly included the pathway in Survey No.4/2A and while doing so, a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner was also shown as a part of the pathway. The petitioner wanted this mistake to be corrected and hence made a representation on 16.12.2024 to the respondents.

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of the 2nd respondent dealing with the representation, the 1st respondent had acted upon the representation and had issued the impugned proceedings dated 2/4

27.12.2024 rejecting the application made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 5.In the considered view of this Court, the grievance expressed by the petitioner can be considered only by the 2nd respondent since according to the petitioner, the mistake had taken place during the UDR Scheme. Therefore, the 1st respondent should not have dealt with the representation. Hence, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 27.12.2024 is hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to deal with the representation / application submitted by the petitioner and final orders shall be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

02.04.2025 krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No : Yes / No N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

3/4

krk To 1.The Tahsildar, Tiruppathur Taluk, Thirupathur, Tiruppathur District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Thirupathur, Thirupathur District.

02.04.2025 4/4