P.Pandi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI P.Pandi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul.

2. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

3. P.Thanga Pandiyan ... Respondents P RAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue fresh patta in respect of Survey Nos. 5/1A and 5/1B situated at Ramarajapuram Village, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District in compliance of order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 8174/2022/Aa4 dated 09.01.2023 after due survey the patta land and government poramboke land in Survey Nos. 5/1 within time frame stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajan For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to issue fresh patta to the petitioner, complying with the orders of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 8174/2022/Aa4 dated 09.01.2023.

2.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, with the consent of learned counsel on either sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3.The petitioner has sought for cancellation of patta wrongly issued to the third respondent and for issuance of joint patta. After surveying the lands in survey No. 5/1A and if necessary correct the FMB records. The first respondent conducted enquiry and recommended the second respondent to make necessary corrections after survey and issue fresh patta to the petitioner on 09.01.2023. Despite the said order of the first respondent being passed on 09.01.2023, there were no further steps taken by the second respondent, which necessitated the petitioner to send 2/5

a representation on 12.06.2024 to the second respondent. 4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the the first respondent has conducted enquiry and passed orders on 09.01.2023 and it is only compliance of the order, which is sought to be enforced by the petitioner by way of present writ petition.

6.Considering the fact that the first respondent has passed the order only after hearing the third respondent and as on date, there is no challenge to the order by the 3rd respondent or any other interested person, there is no impediment for the second respondent to comply with the direction issued by the first respondent vide order, dated 09.01.2023. 7.In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed with the direction to the second respondent to implement the order of the first 3/5

respondent dated 09.01.2023 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after issuing notice to the third respondent. No costs.

NCC : Yes / No 04.03.2025 Index : Yes / No PNM TO:-

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul.

2. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

4/5

P.B. BALAJI , J.

PNM ORDER IN 04.03.2025 5/5