Laskhmi v. The District Revenue Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

2. Nagaraj

3. Lakshmi Narayanan

4. Anjiappan

5. Subramani ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2025 sent for rectifying the mistake occurred during UDR Scheme in respect of the petitioner's lands 1/6

measuring 0.80 cents in S.F.No.350/1 situated at Denkanikottai Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Inian .R For R1 : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader

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 the respondents 2 to 5 is dispensed with.

2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus to st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated direct the 1 21.03.2025, seeking to rectify the mistake occurred during UDR Scheme in respect of the petitioner's lands comprised in S.F.No.350/1, measuring 0.80 cents, situated at Denkanikottai Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District. 2/6

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property comprised in S.F.No.350/1, measuring 0.80 cents, situated at Denkanikottai Revenue Village and Taluk, Krishnagiri District, originally belonged to petitioner's grandfather. Petitioner's grandfather released his right over the subject property to his son Narayanappa (petitioner's father) vide Release Deed in Doc.No.979/1972, dated 22.05.1972, on the file of SRO, Denkanikottai. Thereafter, petitioner's father died on 08.06.1981 leaving behind the petitioner and his mother.

3.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Narayanappa's brother one Venkataramanappa obtained Patta fraudulently in his name during UDR Scheme. After the death of Venkataramanappa, Patta has been transferred in the names of respondents 2 to 5. 3.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the st respondent to petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.03.2025 to the 1 st rectify the mistake which occurred during the UDR Scheme. However, 1 respondent has not considered petitioner's representation till date. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3/6

4. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that originally patta stood in the name of Mr.Venkatramanappa (petitioner's uncle) and after his death in the name of respondents 2 to 5. Thus this may not be a case of rectification of mistake during the UDR Scheme, instead there may be a need for the petitioner to request for cancellation of patta which presently stands in the names of respondents 2 to 5 and to issue patta in petitioner's name.

5. On this being pointed out, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they would take out a fresh representation for cancellation of patta in the names of respondents 2 to 5 and to issue patta in petitioner's name.

6. In this circumstance, it is open to the petitioner to take out a fresh representation seeking cancellation of patta in the names of respondents 2 to 5 and to issue patta in petitioner's name and work out the remedy in the manner known to law.

4/6

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 27.06.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No spp To:

The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

5/6

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

spp 27.06.2025 6/6