Bharathi. R v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA R.Bharathi .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.R.Vishwanathan 3.R.Jeyaraj .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.1198811/2023/B4 within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan For R1 :

Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court for a mandamus to the 1st respondent to dispose of the proceedings in No.Na.Ka.No. 1198811/2023/B4.

2. The interest of the petitioner in the land in question has not been set out properly in the affidavit. Be that as it may, the contention of the petitioner is that the properties in question and other properties belonged to one Chinnachamy. On his death, it was inherited by one Ramasamy and his brother Alagappan each owning a half share. Alagappan's half share was inherited by his son Chinnachamy and Chinnachamy later executed a partition deed in the year 1957 in favour of his first wife's son Thiyagarajan. The said Thiyagarajan sold his entire share in the year 1973 to Ramanathan s/o Annamalai. Chinnachamy's son Ramasamy's half share was inherited by one Chinnan and Annamalai. Thereafter, Annamalai transferred his share in favour of his son Ramanathan. Ramanathan therefore owned 3/4th share in the survey numbers and the remaining 1/4th share was owned by Chinnan and the same was inherited

by his son called Ramasamy. Patta for Survey No.686/6 and 686/2 are patta no.2142 and 2362 respectively.

3. The name of the pattadar is wrongly shows as Ramasamy Servai S/o Chinnan Servai instead of Ramasamy S/o Chinnan. The petitioner had made a representation to the District Collector to correct the same on 08.08.2022. This application was wrongly forwarded to the Tahsildar who reforwarded it to the 1st respondent. However, no enquiry has been held. Considering the above and the fact that two reminders, dated 23.08.2023 and 16.11.2023 has only evoked enquiry notices, dated 90.02.2024 and 12.08.2024 without any further progress, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has made a representation as early as on 08.08.2022 and has made reminders on 23.08.2023 and 16.11.2023, a mandamus is issued to the 1st respondent to ascertain the right of the petitioner to the land and thereafter, proceed to pass orders. The interest of the party to the land shall also be mentioned

in the order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight

(8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

02.09.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

P.T.ASHA, J.

gbg 02.09.2024