M.Rajaguru v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.(MD)No.8207 of 2017 M.Rajaguru : Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Village, Virudhunagar District. : Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to rectify the wrong entry made in the revenue records in respect of S.No.410/1 measuring 3.41 Acres situated at Sundarapandiam Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, which belongs to Devar Community people by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 29.09.2016 and make necessary further entries in the revenue records in the name Devar Community People with the time frame fixed by this court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The prayer sought for in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to rectify the wrong entry made in the revenue records in respect of Survey No.410/1 measuring to an extent of 3.41 Acres situated at Sundarapandiam Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, which belongs to Devar Community people, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 29.09.2016. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the lands in Survey No.410/1 to an extent of 3.41 Acres situated at Sundarapandiam village, belongs to Devar community people and they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the lands for the past 19 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

years and they have also constructed temples in the said lands. Patta was also issued in the name of the said community. 3.The only grievance of the petitioner is that while making entry in the computer patta in respect of Survey No.410/1, the name of the Saliyar community was wrongly entered instead Devar community. This mistake was not rectified, in spite of representation made by the petitioner, dated 29.09.2016. 4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that a mistake had taken place, while updating the records under UDR Scheme and the 2nd respondent District Revenue Officer is the competent authority to rectify the above mistake, but the petitioner has not given any representation to the 2nd respondent so far and there is no proof for submitting the representation to the 2nd respondent.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.In view of the above submissions made by either side and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to give a fresh representation, by enclosing this order copy along with necessary documents to the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy and on such receipt, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner, purely on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of six weeks therefrom. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(co) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S.) To, 1.The District Collector,Virudhunagar District,Virudhunagar. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Village,Virudhunagar District. 4.The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

er MAS/JC/SAR 2/21.06.2017/2P/5C W.P.(MD)No.8207 of 2017 08.06.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/