Rajeswari v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Rajeswari W/o.Shanmugam, Ramanatha Ayer House, Pochampalli Taluk and Post, Krishnagiri District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to dispose of the representation dated 08.09.2018 pending before the 1st Respondent.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Chithiragomathy For Respondent(s):

Mr.M.Guruprasad, Government's Counsel Order This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1st Respondent to dispose of the representation dated 08.09.2018 pending before the said official.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the year 2013, the petitioner's mother executed a Deed of Settlement, settling an extent of 0.50 cents of land in S.F.No.115, Reddipatti Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District in favour of the petitioner. In the year 2017, the petitioner made an application before the 2nd respondent to issue individual patta in favour of her. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2441/2018 and this Court vide order 05.02.2018, directed the 2nd respondent to dispose the representation. In compliance of the said order, the 2nd respondent vide his order dated 22.05.2018, rejected the petitioner's representation on the ground that one Mr.Jagadeesan, holding UDR patta for the subject property, filed a Civil Suit and it is pending.

3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Suit was dismissed on 14.11.2017. Hence, the petitioner based on the report of the 2nd respondent, submitted another representation dated 08.09.2018 before the 1st respondent. Since the said representation was not considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the said fact is refused by the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents and submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of the property.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering all the above aspects, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has given representation as early as on 08.09.2018. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation along with documents establishing his title, to the respondents. Upon receipt of such fresh representation, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of any dispute regarding possession, the respondents shall not adjudicate upon the question of title. The petitioner and the concerned parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for recovery of possession and for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. The official respondents shall not involve themselves in such proceedings or take any action affecting the rights of the parties unless specifically directed by the competent Civil Court.

7. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SK

To

1. The District Collector Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

sk 08-06-2026