M. Venkatesh v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI M.Venkatesh : Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Revenue Officer, O/o. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anjukulipatti Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

3. The Tahsildhar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

4. The Village Administrative officer, Anjukulipatti Village, East Taluk, Dindigul District.

: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to modify the entry made in Patta No.5218 relating to change of 1/5

father name of the petitioner in Plot No.38 of the land comprised in Survey No. 169/33 to an extent of 4 Acres 66 Cents located at Anjukulipatti Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District based on the application of the petitioner dated 06.11.2024 in application No. 2024/0105/13/446203 made to the 3rd respondent within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Benazir Begum For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner has sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to modify the patta by correcting the name of his father which has been incorrectly reflected.

2.Learned Government Advocate Mr.C.Satheesh, would however invite my attention to the application made by the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has made an application for patta transfer without mentioning about the rectification of the father's name. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the website there is no option for such correction of errors in the names of the parties and therefore, application of the petitioner is reflected as if it is an application for sub-division of patta transfer. 2/5

3.The specific case of the petitioner is that his father's name is wrongly mentioned in the patta and in that regard he has given an online application.

4.In view of the above, there can be no impediment for the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application subject to the petitioner providing satisfactory evidence regarding correct name of the petitioner's father. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

21.03.2025 Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR 3/5

To

1. The District Revenue Officer, O/o. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anjukulipatti Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

3. The Tahsildhar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

4. The Village Administrative officer, Anjukulipatti Village, East Taluk, Dindigul District.

4/5

P.B.BALAJI.

, J.

MR 21.03.2025 5/5