← Library
Madras High CourtWP/32482/2025disposed of

D.Kodhandan v. The District Collector

2025-09-08Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 08.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY D.Kodhandan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai - 600 001.

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o.District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai - 600 001.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (South), Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

4.The Tahsildar, Shozhinganallur Taluk Office, Shozhinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

5.Neela ... Respondents 1/7

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose the representation in the subject matter of the property to an extent of 0.1.44 hectares in Survey No.589/2C2B, Pallikaranai Village, Kanchipuram District as claimed by the petitioner in his representation dated 07.08.2024.

For Petitioner : Ms.V.Ananthi For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.P.Ganesan, Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to dispose the representation in the subject matter of the property to an extent of 0.1.44 hectares in Survey No.589/2C2B, Pallikaranai Village, Kanchipuram District as claimed by the petitioner in his representation dated 07.08.2024.

2. Mr.P.Ganesan, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2/7

3. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in S.No.589/2c, to an extend of 0.09 cents, situated in Solinganallur Taluk, Pallikarani Village, Chennai was originally belongs to petitioner's grandfather viz., Ramanjal Naicker. After his demise, the said property was inherited by three legal heirs of said Ramanjal Naicker viz., Sambandha Naicker, Duraikannu Naicker (petitioner's father) and Sadhasivam Naicker. Thereafter, a joint family coorchit dated 05.04.1983 was executed between the legal heirs of Sambandham Naicker, petitioner's father and Sadhasivam Naicker, thereby divided the property and each of the family was allotted with the marking of the property A, B and C. Though, there are 9 cents of the property situates in S.No.589/2C, as per Revenue records in patta No.2666, it shows only 7-1/2 cents.

3.1. The petitioner's father executed settlement deed dated 25.09.2006, in favour of the petitioner for the B schedule property. After the deaths of Dhanasekaran, (one of the legal heirs of late Sambandhan Naicker) and Sadhasivam, their wives and children 3/7

executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Rangan for 2/3 share mentioning about 5 1/2 cents. The said Rangan executed a sale deed for 2400 sq.ft. of land in Survey No.589/2C in favour of the fifth respondent. As per the revenue records, only 5 cents were allotted to Dhanasekaran and Sadhasivam and they have illegally included 1/2 cent and executed the sale deed. Thereafter, the fifth respondent applied for patta and included the petitioner's property in Patta No.11002 to an extent of 0.02.2 Ares, which caused a reduction in the share of petitioner's patta property. In order to rectify the same, the petitioner sent a representation dated 07.08.2024 to the second respondent. However, the same was not considered till date. 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 07.08.2024. 4/7

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2024 would be considered and appropriate orders passed within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

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

7. Considering the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2024, after issuing due notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent and aggrieved persons, if any and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5/7

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

08.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No vm To 1.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai - 600 001.

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o.District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai - 600 001.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (South), Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

4.The Tahsildar, Shozhinganallur Taluk Office, Shozhinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

6/7

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm 08.09.2025 7/7