M.Shanmugam v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY M.Shanmugam ...
Petitioner Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office Of The Revenue Divisional Office, Sankakiri, Salem.
2.The Tahsildar Edappadi Taluk, Edappadi, Salem District.
...
Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in O.Mu.No.1223/2025/A3/dated 19.6.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to rectifying mistake occured in the patta No.2297 relating to the extent of land comprised in survey No.451/3B from 0.05.5 Hectares 1/6
to 1.97 Hectares situated at situate at Oruvapatti Kizhakku Kadu Chittoor village and post (Bit -2)Edappadi Taluk, Salem District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate
ORDER
Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to rectify the mistake occured in the patta No.2297 relating to the extent of land comprised in Survey No.451/3B from 0.05.5 Hectares to 1.97 Hectares situated at situate at Oruvapatti Kizhakku Kadu Chittoor village and post (Bit -2)Edappadi Taluk, Salem District.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid property belongs to the petitioner's father. Since there was mistake with regard the measurements pertaining to Survey 2/6
No.451/3A and 4513B, the petitioner sent a representation to the 1st respondent to correct the same. But without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without application of mind, the 2nd respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide the order impugned herein. Being aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that the opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the petitioner before passing the order dated 19.06.2025. He therefore prays for appropriate orders.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
5. In the case on hand, opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, in the interest of justice and also in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its case, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 19.06.2025 and remit the matter back to the 2nd 3/6
respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to conduct fresh enquiry and pass fresh orders on the represenation of the petitioner dated 24.01.2025, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 12.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No arr 4/6
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office Of The Revenue Divisional Office, Sankakiri, Salem.
2.The Tahsildar Edappadi Taluk, Edappadi, Salem District.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., arr 12.09.2025 6/6
7/6