T.Srinivasan, v. The District Revenue Officer
I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F J U D I C A T U R E A T M A D R A S DATED:18.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI T.Srinivasan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Special Tahsildar, Town Settlement Office, Tiruvannamalai.
4.Sagunthala 5.Rani 6.Padmini 7.Anitha 8.Selvakumar ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.01.2017 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
Page No.1 of 6
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ashok For Respondents : Mr.U.Bharandharan for RR1 to 3 Additional Government Pleader : R4 - Tapal return 'Deceased'
: Mr.Kumara Devan for RR5 to 8
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.01.2017 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2.The case of the petitioner is that originally the property in S.No.1891/2 was owned by one Poongavanam Naicker, who executed a Settlement Deed for 1 Acre of land out of 1.66 acres on 29.06.1933 in favour of his son namely Perumal Naicker @ Govindaraj Naicker, grandfather of the petitioner. The said Govindaraj Naicker sold his share of 50 cents of land by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 22.07.1958 and 50 cents was settled in favour of the petitioner's father by way of Will dated 19.10.1958. Thereafter, the petitioner's father sold the said property by dividing the same into various parts by Page No.2 of 6
obtaining the Release Deed from 36 other legal heirs. However, inadvertently, in T.S.L.R. entry some third party name has been reflected and for the rectification of the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 19.01.2017, however, till date, the same was not considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2017 and pass appropriate orders within a particular time frame fixed by this Court.
4.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that pursuant to the petitioner's representation, an enquiry was considered, however, the same has not been concluded. 5.In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case directs the respondents 1 to 3 to conclude the enquiry conducted, pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2017, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, Page No.3 of 6
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 18.11.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No gba To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Special Tahsildar, Town Settlement Office, Tiruvannamalai.
Page No.4 of 6
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
gba Page No.5 of 6
18.11.2022 Page No.6 of 6