S.Prakash v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ S.Prakash : Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, O/o District Collector, Krishnagiri 635 115 2.The Sub Collector, O/o the Sub Collector Hosur Sub Division, Hosur 635 109 3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District 4.Chinnamma 5.Muniraj 6.Nagaraj 7.Muni Ellappa : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta for S.No.748/2C2 in Mathigiri village Hosur Taluk Krishnagiri District based on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.2.2024. 1/5

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 3

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass and also the limited relief that is sought to be granted, notice to respondent Nos.4 to 7 is dispensed with.

2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta for the property comprised in S.No.748/2C2 situated in Mathigiri village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District based on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.2.2024.

3. At the outset, it was submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 that from the averments in the affidavit it would appear that petitioner's request is with regard to modification of UDR and the authority to modify the entries in the UDR is vested with the DRO. Therefore, he 2/5

would submit that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to submit a representation before the DRO and if any such representation is made before the DRO, the same would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for petitioner.

4. In view of the limited relief that is prayed, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with following directions: i) It is open to the petitioner to submit a representation before the DRO. ii) If any such representation is submitted, the DRO shall consider the same, after issuing notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 7 and all other interested parties including rival claimants, and pass orders within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of filing of any such representation.

iii) Though facts have been set out in affidavit, in view of the limited relief that is sought to be granted, I do not propose to examine the same, lest it may influence the authority. The authority shall independently consider the facts and law set out in the representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with 3/5

law.

iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. Rights and contentions of the petitioner and all other interested parties are left open.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

29.08.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order mrn To 1.The District Collector, O/o District Collector, Krishnagiri 635 115 2.The Sub Collector, O/o the Sub Collector Hosur Sub Division, Hosur 635 109 3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District 4/5

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

(mrn) 29.08.2025 5/5