← Library
Madras High CourtWP/35395/2023disposed of

M.Uma Maheswari v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

2024-01-19Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.01.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN M.Uma Maheswari ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai Central Division, Chennai.

2. The Tahsildar, O/o Ayanavaram Taluk, Chennai - 6000 102. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the wrong entry made in the Revenue Records to the property situated in Block No.4, Survey No.45, at Ayanavaram Taluk, Chennai District and register the petitioner name in the Revenue Record in the abovesaid property.

For Petitioner : M/s.D.Bharathi For Respondents : Mrs. V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to rectify the wrong entry made in the Revenue Records to the property situated in Block No.4, Survey No.45, at Ayanavaram Taluk, Chennai District and to register the petitioner's name in the Revenue Record in the abovesaid property.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the property situated in Block No.4 and Survey No.45 at Ayanavaram Taluk, Chennai from the power of attorney of one Aadhi Lakshmi. The said Aadhi Lakshmi purchased the property from Devasthanam. Further he submitted that there is a wrong entry in the Revenue records with regard to the petitioner's property as if the said property was stood in the name of Prasanna Vigneshwarar Koil Land.

Hence, the petitioner made a representation before the respondents to correct the wrong entry made in the patta and to register the petitioner's name in the Revenue Record in the abovesaid property. Since the respondents have not considered her representation, she is constrained to file the present writ petition.

4. On perusal of the extract of the "A" Register filed by the respondents, which clearly shows that the property originally stood in the name of "Prasanna Vigneshwarar Devasthanam " and no wrong entry was made in the revenue record as stated by the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2022, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible after issuing notice to the petitioner, Devasthanam/ interested parties/rival claimants/objectors if any, as the case may be and conduct enquiry in the manner known to law and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

19.01.2024 mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai Central Division, Chennai.

2. The Tahsildar, O/o Ayanavaram Taluk, Chennai - 6000 102.

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa 19.01.2024