Babu @ C.Prabkaran v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR Babu @ C.Prabakaran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Vembakkam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
4.Ponnusamy 5.Gopi 6.Sadagopan 7.Selvam 8.Ayyappan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.06.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pavendhan Page No.1 of 6
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, AGP
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.06.2024.
2. Heard both sides. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that his grandfather Chellappa Gounder purchased northern half of property in Survey No.464/2 with an extent of 1.87 acres out of total extent of 3.74 acres and in Survey No.464/4, an extent of 20 cents out of 40 cents, situated at Pavur Village, Vembakkam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, under registered sale deed dated 25.02.1928. The predecessors of the respondents 4 to 8 purchased the southern portion of the property in the above mentioned Survey Numbers with the same extent on 24.02.1928. The predecessors of the petitioner purchased the northern half of the said property. After the death of the grandfather of the petitioner, the patta was transferred in the name Page No.2 of 6
of his legal heirs. In the said patta, the extent of the property was wrongly mentioned as 0.78.50 ares instead of 0.83.50 ares. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent seeking correction in the revenue records with regard to the correct extent. But, the same was not considered by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader who is taking notice for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2024 would be considered on its own merits, after issuing notice to all the interested parties. He further submitted that the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner is District Revenue Officer.
5. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to forward the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2024 to the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Page No.3 of 6
District Revenue Officer shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2024 and pass final orders on its own merits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner as well as the interested parties including the respondents 4 to 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
6. The Registry is directed to mark copy of this order to District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai.
Index : Yes /No 23.08.2024 Speaking / Non-speaking gsk Page No.4 of 6
To 1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Vembakkam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai.
Page No.5 of 6
S. SOUNTHAR , J.
gsk 23.08.2024 Page No.6 of 6