Madras High CourtWP(MD)/5321/2022disposed of

Ganesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

2022-03-25Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Ganesan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukkottai Revenue Division, 2.The Tahsildar, .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to delete the wrong entry and restore the petitioner name in patta No.330 in respect of S.F.No.69/1A of Ottankadu Utkkadai Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the first respondent to delete the alleged wrong entry and restore the petitioner's name in patta No.330 in respect of S.F.No.69/1A of Ottankadu Utkkadai Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District, based on the petitioner's representations, dated 17.12.2021 and 29.01.2022, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the aforementioned property. However, in patta No.330 issued for the said property, his name has been removed. The petitioner has given representations on 17.12.2021 and 29.01.2022, to the respondents for the said purpose. Since the representations have not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3.Heard Mr.R.Paranjothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

1/3

4.The petitioner has filed documents along with the writ petition to substantiate his claim that in patta No.330, his name has been wrongly removed for the aforementioned property. It is for the respondents to consider the documents and decide as to whether the petitioner's name can be included in the patta or not. 5.No prejudice will be caused to the second respondent, if the petitioner's representations are considered on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner as well as any other rival claimants, whom the second respondent deems fit to enquire.

6.Accordingly, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representations, dated 17.12.2021 and 29.01.2022, requesting the respondents to restore the petitioner's name in patta No.330, in respect of S.F.No.69/1A of Ottankadu Utkkadai Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner and any other rival claimants, whom the second respondent deems fit to enquire. 7.With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TM Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 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, Pattukkottai Revenue Division, 2/3

2.The Tahsildar, +1 CC to M/s.K.BAALASUNDHARAM, Advocate ( SR-14690[F] dated 25/03/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-14843[F] dated 28/03/2022 ) 25.03.2022 KG(CO) KP(01.04.2022) 3P 5C 3/3