← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/21698/2016disposed of

C.S.Ramu v. The District Collector

2016-11-11Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P(MD).No.21698 of 2016 **** C.S.Ramu ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Madurai District.

2.The Assistant Director of Land Survey/ P.A to Collector, Madurai District.

3.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

4.The Taluk Surveyor, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to correct the revenue records relating to the 18 cents of property situated in Survey No.59/9A1 at Thadampatti Village, Vadipatti Tk , Madurai District stands in the name of the petitioner and his wife Thilagam jointly as per the Registered Sale Deed Document No.322 -457-459-895-1988 dated 29.8.1988 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Vadipatti, Madurai District and issue its corrected Patta to the Petitioner within a time frame by this Court.

For petitioner : Mr.D.Ghandiraj For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham Addl. Govt. Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a direction, directing the respondent to correct the revenue records relating to the 18 cents of property situated in Survey No.59/9A1 at Thadampatti Village, Vadipatti Tk , Madurai District stands in the name of the petitioner and his wife Thilagam jointly as per the Registered Sale Deed Document No.322 -457-459-895-1988 dated 29.8.1988 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Vadipatti, Madurai District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.

According to the petitioner, he has purchased a property to an extent of 93 cents in the adjacent two survey numbers i.e Sy.No.59/5 and 59/5A, in Thadampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, on 29.08.1988. But during the UDR Scheme, patta was granted only for 18 cents. Hence, he made a representation before all the respondents from the year 2013 onwards. At last, he approached the second respondent and made a representation on 28.03.2016. Sofar, no order has been passed. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if any error committed in the UDR scheme, only the District Revenue Officer of the concerned District is competent to correct the errors.

4.In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such representation, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai is directed to consider the same and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar vs To

1. The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Assistant Director of Land Survey/ P.A to Collector, Madurai District.

3.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The Taluk Surveyor, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

+1CC to Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Advocate Sr.No.68034 +1CC to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.68337 GJM/MPA/1.12.16-2p-7C W.P(MD).No.21698 of 2016 11.11.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/