← Library
Madras High CourtWP/32357/2025disposed of

N.Ravikumar v. The District Collector

2025-09-08Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 08.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY N.Ravikumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Department, Ariyalur District.

3.The Thasildhar, Office of the Thasildhar, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the extent of the property mentioned in patta No.8880 & 8881 issued to the petitioner pursuant to his representation dated 31.01.2025. 1/6

For Petitioner : R.Rajasekar For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to rectify the extent of the property mentioned in patta No.8880 & 8881 issued to the petitioner pursuant to his representation dated 31.01.2025.

2. Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's late wife Sandhyarani purchased a properties comprised in S.No.147/4, to an extent of 41 cents, situated at Ravoothampatti Village. After her demise, the said property was inherited by the petitioner and his legal heirs. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has transferred the patta on his favour, in respect of aforesaid properties vide patta Nos.8880 & 8881. However, 2/6

in the said patta, the extent of property was wrongly shown as 0.13.57 ares instead of 0.16.60 ares. In this regard, the petitioner sent a representation dated 31.01.2025 to the second respondent, who in turn directed the third respondent to file a status report. However, till date, no order was passed. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

4. Though many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2025.

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents referred a communication dated 15.03.2025, wherein, the second respondent has sought additional information from the third respondent. Therefore, he sought four weeks time to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2025. 3/6

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, the respondents 2 & 3 are in the process of disposing the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2025. However, this Court finds fault on the part of the third respondent, who failed to submit the additional report. Though the second respondent has sent a communication dated 15.03.2025, it is unfortunate that the third respondent sitting idol, without forwarding any report. Though, this Court express displeasure on third respondent, it is upto the first respondent to initiate action against the third respondent. Moreover, this Court will be happy, if any action has been taken by the first respondent against the third respondent for delay in forwarding the report, which will be a caution for other officers as well as in future, the third respondent will not repeat the same.

4/6

8. Considering the aforesaid aspects, this Court issues the following directions:- (i) The third respondent is directed to send a report to the second respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(ii) On such receipt, the second respondent is directed to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2025, within a period of six weeks thereof;

(iii) Since, the delay was occurred on the part of the third respondent, it is upto the first respondent to call for appropriate explanation from the third respondent.

With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

08.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No vm 5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Department, Ariyalur District.

3.The Thasildhar, Office of the Thasildhar, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

08.09.2025 6/6