K.Balasubramanian v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI K.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner .Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, 3.The Tashildar, Kayathar Taluk, Kayathar, .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to pass appropriate order on the enquiry report submitted by the second respondent in vide proceedings Na.Ka.A2/12328/2023, dated 12.02.2024 within a stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Lakshmanan for Mr.V.Muthu Kamatchi For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

By consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3.The petitioner claims to be the trustee of the "Vaiyapuri Velan Dharma Paripalana Trust. It is a registered trust. The trust belongs to eight families and the petitioner is from one of the said eight families. The predecessors of the trustees have constructed a small Vinayagar Temple and Mandapan besides also erecting a Murugan 'Vel' situated at S.R.No.109/1 and 113/4 in Saravanapuram Village, Kayathar Taluk, 2/5

4.According to the petitioner, the said temple has been worshipped by the predecessors for more than a century. The grievance of the petitioner is that the lands, though belonging to the temple, certain individuals are claiming rights over the said lands. The petitioner made a request for rectifying the mistake in the UDR patta and to restore the mutation in the name of the temple by making a representation as early as on 19.04.2022 to the second respondent. The second respondent has forwarded the said representation to the third respondent with a direction to conduct an enquiry and submit a detailed report regarding the mutation of the UDR patta. 5.According to the petitioner, the third respondent has already conducted the enquiry and submitted a report to the second respondent by recommending the mutation of patta in the name of the temple. However, the first respondent, according to the petitioner, has not passed any order for mutation of the UDR patta, despite receipt of the report from the second respondent.

3/5

6.Considering the scope of the prayer seeking writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass orders based on the report submitted by the second respondent, I am inclined to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to pass orders based on the report received from the second respondent, dated 12.02.2024, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Index:Yes/No 04.02.2025 Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No sji To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, 3.The Tashildar, Kayathar Taluk, Kayathar, 4/5

P.B.BALAJI,J.

Sji 04.02.2025 5/5