Sevugaperumal v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI 1.Sevugaperumal 2.Senthilkumar ... Petitioners /Vs./ 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Sivagangai District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

3.Gnanaprakasham 4.Manickam 5.Arokiyam 6.Joseph 7.Mrs.Panjavarnam ... Respondents P RAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Pa.MUB4/17457/2020 dated 13.03.2023 and quash the same as illegal 1/5

and consequently direct the second respondent to mutate the patta in S.No.242/1A and 242/1B in Vaniyangudi Group, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District to the petitioner's name jointly. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R3 to R6 : Mr.K.P.Ramesh

ORDER

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents 3 to 6.

2. Though the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 seeks short accommodation to file counter, considering the scope of the writ petition, I do not deem it fit to adjourn the matter and in any event, I am also protecting the interests of the respondents 3 to 7 also the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 13.03.2023.

2/5

3. The only ground on which the petitioners representation has been dismissed is that the application seeking rectification of UDR records is beyond the statutory period of limitation. The respondents are unable to show any provision that mandates or specifies any specific time limit for seeking correction in the UDR records. Therefore, the observation of the second respondent that the application seeking rectification of UDR records is beyond statutory period of limitation is unsubstantiated and unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. After hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents 3 to 7, the second respondent shall pass final orders in accordance with law and on merits.

4. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No 06.03.2025 am 3/5

To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Sivagangai District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

4/5

P.B. BALAJI , J.

am Order made in Dated:

06.03.2025 5/5