Basappa v. The District Revenue Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.09.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR W.P No.26912 of 2024 Basappa

...Petitioner

Vs.

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

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Tahsildar, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.

4. Muninaidu

5. Munusamy

6. Narasimmaya

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.06.2024 in accordance with law and within stipulated period.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Marudhachalam For R1 to R3 : Mr.Arasa Kumar Government Advocate 1/5

O R D E R

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation dated 11.06.2024 and pass orders in accordance with law.

2. By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 3, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. According to the petitioner, his great grandmother Pappammal purchased the lands in Old S.F.Nos.49/D and 49/E measuring an extent of 4.25 and 2.00 acres respectively situated at Mattampalli Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District and patta was also issued in her favour. After her death, the said lands devolved on her daughter Sonnammal and thereafter, on the petitioner's mother by name Muni Venkatamma, being legal heir. During the UDR scheme, the classification of the subject lands was wrongly mentioned as Government Poromboke - Karadu and patta was also erroneously issued in the name of the respondents 4, 5 and 6. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 11.06.2024 to the first respondent with copy marked to 2/5

the respondents 2 and 3 seeking issuance of patta in the name of the legal heirs of Pappammal and the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Mr.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that there are no survey numbers as 49/D and 49/E in the concerned village and therefore, it is difficult for the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner.

5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this Court to the title document in favour of the petitioner's grandmother Pappammal, submitted that she purchased the above mentioned lands in survey Nos. 49/D and 49/E.

6. In view of the above stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.06.2024 and pass final orders, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 6 and any other interested parties, within a period 3/5

of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

18.09.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order av To

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

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Tahsildar, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.

4/5

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

av W.P No.26912 of 2024 18.09.2024 5/5