L.P.Rajakumari v. The District Collector
DATED: 17.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N. MALA and WMP.No.18564 of 2025 L.P.Rajakumari, W/o.Late.Loganathan, No.28/25,Gowdan Street, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Ranipet District.
2.The Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality, No.1, Railway Station Road, Ranipet District.
3.The Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Collectorate Building, Ranipet District.
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to consider and dispose petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2024 requesting 1/82025
to re-convey the land measuring an extent of 14.4 cents comprised in survey No.147/1, (survey field No.33) situated at Punitha Nagar, Thandalam Village, Ranipet District inadvertently assigned and earmarked as park vide DTCP approval No.82/1983 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner:
Mr.S.Doraiswamy For Respondents:
Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.M.S.Pream Kumar, Government Advocate for R2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2024 requesting to reconvey the land measuring an extent of 14.4 cents comprised in survey No.147/1, (survey field No.33) situated at Punitha Nagar, Thandalam Village, Ranipet District, inadvertently assigned and earmarked as park vide DTCP approval No.82/1983.
2. The petitioner's father, Mr.Shanmugam, owned 2.52 acres of land in 2/82025
Survey No.147/1 (now Survey Field Register No.33), Punitha Nagar, Thandalam Village, Ranipet District, which he inherited from his father. In 1983, DTCP approval No.82/1983 was granted for layout development, which included allocation of 10% of the land (25.10 cents) for a park. However, due to an inadvertent error, 39.5 cents were earmarked for park use. The petitioner's father never executed any document transferring this excess land for public use. After his demise in 2004, the petitioner and her siblings discovered this discrepancy while attempting to partition the property in November 2024. Despite no formal conveyance, patta was issued in favour of the 2 nd respondent, and construction has now begun on the disputed portion. A representation seeking reconveyance of the excess 14.4 cents was submitted on 09.11.2024, but no action has been taken. The petitioner therefore seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of her representation and also prays for an interim injunction restraining further construction until her claim is resolved.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that only 10% of 3/82025
the layout land (25.10 cents) should have been earmarked for park use, but due to an error, 39.5 cents were assigned without consent or documentation. He argues that this amounts to unauthorized deprivation of private property. Despite a detailed representation requesting reconveyance of the excess 14.4 cents, the authorities have not acted. He also alleges that ongoing construction on the disputed land is an attempt to frustrate her rights.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner dated 09.11.2025 would be considered on merits, in accordance with law, within a time frame stipulated by this Court.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Without going into the merits of the case, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.11.2024 after conducting a detailed enquiry by giving due notice to the petitioner, 4/82025
affording an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.06.2025 dpq/cda Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Ranipet District.
2.The Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality, No.1, Railway Station Road, Ranipet District.
3.The Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Collectorate Building, Ranipet District.
5/82025
6/82025
7/82025
N. MALA,J.
dpq and WMP.No.18564 of 2025 17.06.2025 8/82025