← Library
Madras High CourtWP/29198/2017disposed of

N.Bharathi, v. The District Revenue Officer,

2020-01-28Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam3 pages

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.1.2020 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.29198 of 2017 N.Bharathi

...Petitioner

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

2.The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records Department, District Collector Office, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Sub-Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

5.Mr.A.Krishnappa

...Respondents

PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 09.10.2017 for cancellation patta in respect of Survey No.14, Begepalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and issue patta to the petitioner for an extent of 2240 sq.ft land comprised in Survey No.14 situate at Begepalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.M.D.Ilayaraja, GA

ORDER

I have heard Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.D.Ilayaraja, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

2. The petitioner seeks a direction to the third respondent to consider her representation dated 09.10.2017, by which, the petitioner would state that she requested for deletion of the name of the fifth respondent in patta No.3358.

3. The petitioner's case is that the revenue records were wrongly mutated in the name of the fifth respondent and that the said representation given to the third respondent was acknowledged and she was directed to approach the office of the third respondent within 15 days as could be seen from the endorsement made in the said representation. The petitioner's further case is that she approached the office of the third respondent several times, but there was no response nor any orders were passed on the said representation.

4. The office report shows that the notice sent to the fifth respondent was refused to be received. Thus, it appears that the fifth respondent is not interested in appearing before this Court. In any event, if the third respondent considers the petitioner's representation, the fifth respondent should be put on notice.

5. Considering these facts, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.10.2017, issue notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. For effective compliance of the above directions, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation along with a copy of the earlier representation and a copy of this order and also other documents in support of her claim and present the same in person in the office of the third respondent. The representation of the petitioner shall be considered within a period of twelve weeks from the date, on which, it is filed in the office of the third respondent. No costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records Department, District Collector Office, Krishnagiri District. 3.The Sub-Collector, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. +1 CC to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate sr 6644. +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 6691.

WP.No.29198 of 2017 SP(17/02/2020)