V.Dhanasekar v. The Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN V.Dhanasekar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Collector, Chennai District, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer(North), Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 3.Arun 4.Bhuvaneshwari 5.Varun ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to 1/6

implement the orders of the first respondent passed in Ref.Na.Ka.No.A4/ e-1907548/2024 dated 29.07.2024 on the representation of the petitioner dated 29.06.2024 for taking action against the 3rd to 5th respondents in a time bound period and for other reliefs.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Velmurugan For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader For R3 to 5 : Mr.M.Elumalai

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for direction to the second respondent to implement the order passed by the first respondent dated 29.07.2004.

2.

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court. 3.

It is seen that the petitioner lodged complaint before the first 2/6

respondent making allegations against respondents 3 to 5 in respect of issuance of patta in respect of the land comprised in survey Nos.7/44, 7/45 and 7/46 situated at Block No.4, Selavoyal Village, Perambur, Chennai. On perusal of the entire complaint, it is revealed that the petitioner made allegations against the officers in respect of granting patta. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved over issuance of patta, he can very well challenge the same in the manner known to law. Further, the petitioner cannot seek departmental action against respondents 3 to 5 and as such, the complaint itself is not maintainable in respect of the service dispute. Therefore, seeking direction to initiate departmental proceedings against the official respondents is impermissible. Further, the petitioner has no locus to lodge any complaint to initiate departmental proceedings. However, the first respondent mechanically forwarded the complaint to the second respondent to conduct enquiry, which is not permissible under law. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if at all there is any dereliction of duty on the part of respondents 3 to 5, the 3/6

first respondent is directed to take appropriate action against them. There shall be no order as to costs.

10.10.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok 4/6

To 1.The Collector, Chennai District, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer(North), Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 3.The Government Advocate, High Court of Madras 5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok 10.10.2025 6/6