R.Vasantha v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.12.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN R. Vasantha ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyaru, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. R. Sekar

4. R.Elumalai

5. Adilakshmi

6. Renuka .... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 1/6

06.03.2023, 08.07.2024, 12.11.2024 with regard to cancel the Settlement Deeds, dated 28.05.2005, Document Nos.1555, 1556 and 1557/2005 on the file of SRO, Chethupattu, Thiruvannamalai district respectively based on the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide M.C.No.8 / 2019 dated 31.05.2019 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramdoss For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Addl.Govt.Pleader for R1 & R2

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing against the 1st & 2nd respondents particularly the first respondent/ District Collector, Thiruvannamalai to pass orders on the representations given by the petitioner on 06.03.2023, 08.07.2024 and 12.11.2024 and proceed to cancel the settlement deed dated 28.05.2024 registered as Document No.1555, 1556 and 1557 of 2005 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Chethupattu in Tiruvannamalai district, based on the order of the 2nd respondent in M.C.No.8 of 2019 dated 31.05.2019.

2/6

2. The 2nd respondent had passed an order directing 3 cents of land to be provided to the petitioner herein by the 3rd, 4th & 5th respondents. Seeking to put that order into effect, the petitioner had given representations to the first respondent/District Collector, Thiruvannamalai complaining that no steps have been taken on the basis of the representations given. Hence the present writ petition had been filed in the nature of mandamus.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel who had taken notice on behalf of the 1st & 2nd respondents. It is only appropriate that the order of the 2nd respondent, if not stayed or reversed by any appellate authority, is put into effect by the 1st respondent. The first respondent may therefore issue notice to the petitioner and also to the 3rd to 6th respondents and examine the nature of the order passed and put the same into effect. It is only appropriate that since the petitioner is a senior citizen, necessary steps be taken by the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of 3/6

a copy of this order.

4. With the above observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of even without issuing notice to the 3rd to 6th respondents. No costs.

10.12.2024 dpq Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order To

1. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyaru, Thiruvannamalai District.

4/6

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

dpq 5/6

10.12.2024 6/6