Lakshmiamma, v. The District Revenue Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.21947/2016 Lakshmiamma ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District.

2.The Sub Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Krishnagiri District.

4.Mr.Nanjappa 5.Mr.C.Venkatramanappa ..

Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2016 for rectification of errors crept in, in the revenue records which were wrongly updated during UDR in respect of the lands to an extent of 3.24.0 hectares comprised in Survey No.194/3 and 0.24.5 hectares in S.No.194/4A of Thummanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and issue patta to the petitioner within the time to be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Bharathkkumar For R1 to R3 :

Mr.V.S.Ramesh, GA

ORDER

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner claims that her husband was the owner of the lands admeasuring to an extent of 3.24.0 hectares and 0.24.5 hectares respectively in Survey Nos.194/3 and 194/4A of Thummanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1249/1934 dated 05.04.1934 on the file of the office of the Sub Registrar, Hosur and after his demise on 11.04.1983, she along with her sons and daughter had succeeded to the said estate. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that when they approached the 3rd respondent for issuance of computerised patta, they came to know that the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

admeasuring to an extent of 0.24.5 hectares situated in S.No.194/4A have been wrongly entered in the names of the respondents 4 and 5 while Updating Revenue Scheme [UDR]. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.04.2016 to the respondents and since no orders have been passed, she came forward to file the present writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.S.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the same, directs the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 18.04.2016, on merits and in accordance with law, after putting on notice the respondents 4 and 5 and pass orders within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the respondents 4 and 5.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District.

2.The Sub Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Krishnagiri District.

+1 cc to Mr.R.Bharathkkumar, Advocate,Sr.36078 +1 cc to the Government Pleader,SR.35940 rsy(co) krd 14/7 W.P.No.21947/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/