Sri Keshavanidhiteertha v. The Tahsildar, Hosur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.07.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.17913 of 2018 Sri Keshavanidhiteertha, Head of Sri Sripadaraja Mutt, Mulbagal Mutt, No.58, Raghaendra Colony, Chamarajpet, Bangalore rep. by its Power of Attorney Mr.H.B.Lakshminarayana ... Petitioner Vs The Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

... Respondent Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2016 seeking for the correction in the revenue record with respect to the petitioner's land. For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar For Respondent :

Mr.E.Balamurugan, Spl.G.P.

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2016 seeking for the correction in the revenue record with respect to the petitioner's land.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Mutt is owning immovable properties donated by its devotees as well as purchased from its own funds in various States, namely, Karnataka, Andhrapradesh, Telengana and Tamil Nadu. As such, in Krishnagiri District, Hosur Taluk, Avalapalli Village, the land in Survey Nos.502 and 539 bearing patta No.1342 belongs to the petitioner's Mutt in which the main deity is Mulbagal Anjaneya Swamy. While so, the petitioner came to know that the computer patta and chitta with regard to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

lands in S.Nos.442/1 having an extent of 11.50 ares, S.No.442/2 having an extent of 1.14.00 hectare and S.No.539 having an extent of 0.03.0 ares have been mistakenly entered as Sri Anjaneya Swamy Koil instead of Mulbagal Anjaneya Swamy. In this regard, a representation was given on 10.3.2016 seeking correction in the Revenue Records in respect of the petitioner's land. But, the respondent failed to consider the case of the petitioner, although the petitioner is a Mutt for a long time. Therefore, a direction be issued on the basis of the previous revenue records.

3.

Learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondent sought sufficient time to consider the case of the petitioner.

4.

A perusal of the revenue records produced before this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner Mutt is the owner of the lands covered in S.Nos.442/1, S.No.442/2 and S.No.539 in Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District as per the patta issued on 20.5.2014.. Therefore, they have given a representation dated 10.3.2016 to rectify the inadvertent mistake committed by the revenue officials. Hence, this Court hereby directs the respondent, namely, Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.3.2016 and pass orders on the basis of the previous patta issued in favour of the petitioner Mutt, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

5.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsi To The Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

+2cc to Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah, Advocate, S.R.No.47300 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.47531 W.P.No.17913 of 2018 CA(CO) CS/26/07/18 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/