Manickam.R v. The Thasildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.5680 and 5682 of 2022 R.Manickam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Karur.

2.Pannerselvam, Tahsildar, Karur.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A4/1141/2020 dated 20.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to restore the online revenue documents in respect of Patta No.852, S.No.501, Uppidapalayam West Village, Karur Taluk. For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arunswaminathan For R-1 : Mr.D.Sasikumar, Additional Government Pleader.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2022 passed by the first respondent on the ground that without jurisdiction, the first respondent has passed the impugned order updating the "A" Register.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the subject property is an ancestral property of the petitioner and patta stands in the name of the petitioner's father, Mr.K.Rathinam Pillai. A copy of the patta standing in the name of the petitioner's father is also filed as a document along with the Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, arbitrarily and without jurisdiction, the first respondent has updated the "A" Register in the website disclosing the name of a third party in place of the petitioner's father, K.Rathinam Pillai.

1/3

3. Heard Mr.RM.Arunswaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, at the outset, would submit that the impugned communication dated 20.03.2022 is not a final order, but, it is only a notice. He would also submit that no final orders have been passed till date by the District Revenue Officer. According to him, a person by name, Velusamy, had submitted an application before the District Revenue Officer seeking for UDR correction and no final orders have been passed.

5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that already, as seen from the website, the "A" Register has been modified and the name of the petitioner's father has been removed.

6. Since a categorical statement has been made by the learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions that no final orders have been passed by the District Revenue Officer, and as seen from the communication dated 20.03.2022, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, it is only a notice and it is not a final order, this Court is of the considered view that the apprehension of the petitioner that already final orders have been passed is uncalled for.

7. This Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions that no final orders have been passed till date by the District Revenue Officer concerned, modifying the "A" Register, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In case modification of the "A" Register has already been updated in the website, the first respondent is directed to remove the same and put the name of the petitioner's father, K.Rathinam Pillai in respect of Survey No.501. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will have to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the District Revenue Officer. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (As) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Lm 2/3

To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Karur District,Karur.

2.The Tahsildar, Karur.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP. ( SR-20470[F] dated 22/04/2022 ) 21.04.2022 MGJ(05.05.2022) 3P 4C 3/3