Lakshminathan v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7331 and 7332 of 2024 Lakshminathan, Rep. by his Power Agent, Kanagasekaran.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Pudukkottai.

2.The Tashildar, Alangudi Taluk, Alangudi, Pudukkottai District.

3.Kalappaiah 4.Vijayakumar ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the 1st respondent impugned order in Ni.Mu.T3/4648/2020 dated 15.12.2023 and quash the same.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi, For M/s.KBS Law Office.

For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. 2.This writ petition has been filed in the name of one Lakshminathan. One Kanagasekaran claiming to be the power agent of Lakshminathan has filed this writ petition. The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai. According to the petitioner, the entry in respect of the petition mentioned survey number during UDR was erroneous. The petitioner would contend that the petition mentioned property originally stood in the name of Pattukottaiyan K.Karuppaiah. In fact the entries made prior to UDR have been produced before this Court and there does not appear to be any doubt regarding that. However, during UDR, the name of the third respondent was incorporated. The petitioner would contend that Pattukottaiyan K.Karuppaiah passed away on 09.03.1974 issueless. It is further 2/4

claimed that his brother / Vellaichamy inherited his property. Lakshminathan is said to be the son of Vellaichamy. While the death certificate of Karuppaiah had been enclosed in the typed set of papers, the legal heir certificate has not been enclosed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reasons set out in the impugned order are patently unsustainable. I am not on the correctness of the reasons given in the impugned order. These are matters that will have to be agitated only before the jurisdictional Civil Court. 3.With this liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 01.04.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:- 1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Pudukkottai.

2.The Tashildar, Alangudi Taluk, Alangudi, Pudukkottai District.

3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias 01.04.2024 4/4