M.Nainamohammed v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.08.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA M.Nainamohammed .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.V.Mathialagan 3.Gunasekaran 4.Duraimanickam 5.Nevalinathan 6.Arumbu Amutha .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2024 to rectify the mistakes in Patta Nos.7400, 7393, 7360 and 761 in respect of S.Nos. 147/1, 147/2, 159 and 158/2 situate at Neivanthali Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Jothiraj For Respondent-1 :

Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhiyan Government Advocate

ORDER

This petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2024 and rectify the mistakes in Patta Nos.7400, 7393, 7360 and 761 in respect of S.Nos.147/1, 147/2, 159 and 158/2 situate at Neivanthali Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

2. The petitioner's contention is that these lands besides larger extent of lands in Neivanthali Village and Sathanenthal Village in Aranthangi Taluk belonged to his grandfather Kadharsa Rawther. In the year 1937, the legal heirs of Kadharsa Rawther, which included the petitioner's father Maideen Pitchai, had entered into a registered family partition and the lands in the above villages were partitioned. The petitioner's father became the absolute owner of the aforesaid survey numbers. The settlement register and other records reflect the name of

the petitioner's father. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner has been in enjoyment of the said lands and when he had verified the computer patta, he was surprised to see that the same had been mutated in the names of respondents 2 to 6. The same has been done without any notice to the petitioner or his father, though the entries in 'A' Register etc., stand in the name of his father.

3. Be that as it may, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 06.02.2024 to the first respondent to rectify the mistake in the UDR patta, as it appears that the error had crept in while the revenue records were being updated. It appears that pursuant to this representation, the first respondent had directed the Tahsildar, Aranthangi, to conduct a field enquiry and file a report. There is no progress to date in the enquiry and therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court.

4. Heard Mr.R.Jothiraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhiyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.

5. In the light of the request made by the petitioner and after hearing the learned Government Advocate, this Court directs the first respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2024 on or before 22.08.2024, after giving due notice to respondents 2 to 6 and after affording them a personal hearing.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

7. Post the writ petition on 23.08.2024 'for reporting compliance'. 05.08.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr

To The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

P.T.ASHA, J.

abr Dated: 05.08.2024