Reeta v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN Reeta ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai North, Madurai.

3.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti, 4.Anbarasan 5.Deivam 6.Jeyanthi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2020 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to rectify the mistake crept in Patta No.1089 within the stipulated time.

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Parameshwari, for M/s.S.Sangeetha For Respondents : Mr.M.Pandiya Rajan 1 to 3 Additional Government Pleader *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2020 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to rectify the mistake crept in Patta No.1089 within the stipulated time.

1/3

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Pandiya Rajan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Since this Court is not going to pass any adverse order against the respondents 4 to 6, notice to them is dispensed with.

3.According to the petitioner, the property measuring to an extent of 0.5.1 punchakuli in Re-Survey No.49/6 situated at Mettupatti Village, Alanganallur, belonged to her grandfather and after his demise, the petitioner's father had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner's father by name Ganesan died on 04.02.2001 and during his life time, the petitioner's father sold 3 cents out of 15 cents to the petitioner's husband through a registered sale deed dated 03.11.1998. Thereafter, the rest of the property has been in possession and enjoyment of the legal heirs of petitioner's father including the petitioner. It is further submitted that after the purchase of the land, the patta was issued in the name of the petitioner's grandfather by name Periyasamy Gounder and thereafter, patta bearing No.

1089 was issued by adding legal heirs of the deceased Ganesan as well as Late Ramasamy Gounder who is in no way connected with the property. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 15.10.2020. 4.This Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition as the petitioner is trying to reopen the issue, which has already been concluded nearly before two decades, by way of consider the representation. If such a prayer is allowed, it will pave way for multiplicity of litigations. Though this is a fit case for imposing a cost of not less than Rs.50,000/-, taking note of the fact that the Counsel who appeared on behalf of her friend's case, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) SRM To 1.The District Collector, 2/3

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai North, Madurai.

3.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti, +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-24895[F] dated 10/12/2020 ) W.P(MD)No.17860 of 2020 08.12.20205 VB (29.12.2020) 3P 5C 3/3