Madras High CourtWP(MD)/5480/2021disposed of

Padmini v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

2021-04-23Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH (Through Video Conferencing) Padmini ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai District 2.The Tahsildar, Karambakudi Taluk Pudukottai District ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to issue patta for S.No.232/7C3 natham 233 sq. metre of Malaiyur Village, Karambakudi Taluk, and Pudukottai District in pursuance of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.A6/3531/2010 dated 23.04.2010 and also to carry out necessary changes in revenue records.

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents :Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner with respect to the subject property in line with the orders passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated 23.04.2010.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property is classified as a natham and during the settlement scheme, a patta was issued in favour of the husband of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that her husband died on 23.07.2007 leaving behind the petitioner and three sons. It is stated that the petitioner and her children were enjoying the subject property.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject property was erroneously clubbed with two other survey numbers. The petitioner therefore, made a representation to rectify this mistake. The first respondent, after conducting an enquiry, through the 1/3

proceedings dated 23.04.2010 directed the issuance of a separate patta in favour of the petitioner in S.NO.232/7C3 measuring an extent of 233 sq. mtrs.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the order was passed by the first respondent, the same has not been acted upon by the second respondent and left with no other alternative, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this writ petition and also after taking into account the proceedings of the first respondent dated 23.04.2010, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order.

8. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai District 2.The Tahsildar, Karambakudi Taluk Pudukottai District 2/3

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-17560[F] dated 26/04/2021 ) 23.04.2021 ES(CO) AS(12.05.2021) 3P 4C 3/3