Rajan v. The Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.5581 of 2025 1.Rajan 2.Vijayalakshmi 3.Sridhar 4.Chandrammal 5.Krishnaveni 6.Purushothaman 7.Raghu Prasad 8.Gunasekaran 9.Harikrishnan 10.Pradmavathi @ Padamacini ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Collector, 1/8

2.The District Revenue Officer, 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 4.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 5.The Tahsildar, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

6.The Block Development Officer, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District.

7.The Commissioner, Pennagaram Panchayat Union, Pennagaram Town and Taluk, Dharmapuri District 636 810.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to delete the name of Commissioner, Pennagaram Panchayat Union, consequently enter the name of SrinivasaIyer in the appropriate revenue records for the survey Nos.662, 666 and 667 Parvathanahalli Village, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District within the stipulated time basing upon the representation of the petitioners dated 25.06.2022 2/8

and grant such other reliefs as this case may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate for R4 Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam Additional Government Pleader for R6 and R7

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the name of the Commissioner, Pennagaram Panchayat Union and to enter the name of one Srinivasa Iyer in the revenue records pertaining to the subject property based on the representation made by the petitioners on 25.06.2022.

2.Heard Mr.V.R.Annagandhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on 3/8

behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent and Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 6 and 7. 3.The case of the petitioners is that the said Srinivasa Iyer was the absolute owner of the subject property. He died in the year 1979 leaving behind his wife and children. The wife also died in the year 1991 and one of the son died in the year 2002. The petitioners were informed in the year 2019 that the State Government has already acquired the land in S.No.666, 662 and 667, in order to form Samathuvapuram. The petitioners did not question the acquisition but there was absolutely no information regarding the compensation that was fixed and ultimately, it was informed that the entire compensation amount has been deposited in the account of the temple which is under the control of the HR &CE Department.

4.The petitioners have come up with a case stating that the name of Srinivasa Iyer was clearly shown in the patta. But however, the compensation amount has been deposited in the name of the temple. Therefore, representation 4/8

was made to rectify this anomaly and to enter the name of the Late Srinivasa Iyer in the revenue records. Since the representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 5.It is informed to this Court that subsequent to the acquisition of the property, the compensation amount was also deposited in the account of the temple. At this stage, the relief as sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court. There seems to be an inter se dispute between the petitioners and the temple and petitioners are asserting the fact that the property originally belonged to Srinivasa Iyer and his name was also found in the revenue records and in spite of the same, the compensation amount was paid to the temple.

If that is the case, the petitioners must have questioned the payment of compensation made to the account of the temple immediately and at this length of time, the petitioners cannot seek for removing the name of the Commissioner of Pennagaram Panchayat Union and including the name of Late Srinivasa Iyer in the revenue records. That stage has crossed already and what is left by way of dispute is the compensation amount that is claimed by the petitioner as against the temple in whose account the compensation amount has already been deposited.

6.In the light of the above discussion, it is left open to the petitioners to independently question the compensation amount that was paid in the name of the temple by initiating appropriate proceedings. Except giving this liberty, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition.

7.In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. 24.02.2025 Internet : Yes (2/2) Index : Yes Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssr To 1.The Collector, 2.The District Revenue Officer, 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 6/8

4.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 5.The Tahsildar, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

6.The Block Development Officer, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District.

7.The Commissioner, Pennagaram Panchayat Union, Pennagaram Town and Taluk, Dharmapuri District 636 810.

7/8

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

ssr W.P.No.5581 of 2025 24.02.2025 (2/2) 8/8