Mrs.J.Jeya Gunavarthini, v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 19.09.2016 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Writ Petition (MD)No.17574 of 2016 Mrs.J.Jeya Gunavarthini ... Petitioner -Vs1.The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Theni District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Campus, Periyakulam, Theni District.

3.The Tahsildar, O/O.The Tahsildar, Periyakulam, Theni District.

4.A.K.Sahadevan 5.A.K.Karnan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to conduct the enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated on 15.06.2016 and remove the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Patta No.976 in respect of lands in survey No.1935/2, which is situated in Tamaraikulam II Bit village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District within a time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

For petitioner :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents :Mr.K.P.Krishna Doss Government Advocate for RR-1 to 3

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to conduct enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated, 15.06.2016 and to remove the names of respondents 4 and 5 in Patta No.976 in respect of lands in survey No.1935/2, which is situated in Tamaraikulam II Bit village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. According to the petitioner, his father purchased a land in Sy.No.1935/2, to an extent of 76 cents, situated at Tamaraikulam II Bit village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District and the patta stood in his father's name. Subsequently, the respondents 4 and 5 purchased some other property in the year 1993 and their names have been wrongly included in the patta stood in the name of the petitioner's father. In the said circumstances, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 15.06.2016 to remove the names of the respondents 4 and 5. Since no action has been taken, he has filed the present writ petition. 3.It is seen from the records that as per the orders passed by the third respondent/Tahsildar, Periyakulam, the names of the respondents 4 and 5 have been included in the UDR scheme in STR:- 788/1993-94.

4.In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the only remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the concerned authority for seeking appropriate relief and mere filing of representations is not sufficient. Hence, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority in the appropriate way to redress his grievance.

5.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar VS To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Theni District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Campus, Periyakulam, Theni District.

3.The Tahsildar, O/O.The Tahsildar, Periyakulam, Theni District.

+1CC to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.53971 +1CC to Mr.T.Lajapthi Roy, Advocate Sr.No.53643 GJM/SS2/30.9.16-2p-6c W.P.(MD).No.17574 of 2016 19.09.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/