Sivakumar P v. The Special Thasildar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Writ Petition(MD)No.22602 of 2025 P.Sivakumar ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Special Tahsildar, Urban Revenue Scheme Office, Ponmalai Alagu, Tiruchirappalli (West), Tiruchirappalli District.
2.Lakshmi Kannan ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned enquiry notice in Na.Ka.Aa1/05/2025 dated 16.07.2025 issued by the 1st respondent in respect of petitioner joint family property in S.No. 166/5P, 8P measuring to an extent of 2293 Sq.Feet situated at Door No.57-4, Block No.9, Renga Nagar, Ward-AG K.Abishakapuram (P) Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Ponmalai Zone, Tiruchirappalli West Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mrs.K.Vidya For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Addl. Govt. Pleader (for R1) 1/5
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the enquiry notice issued by the first respondent, calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry in connection with the application submitted by the second respondent seeking correction in the Town Survey Register.
2. Heard the arguments of Mrs.K.Vidya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the first respondent. Since no adverse order is going to be passed, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. By consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that the second respondent has filled an application before the first respondent seeking correction in the revenue records in respect of Town Survey No.24. The impugned communication is only an enquiry notice. It is always open to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent and raise his objection in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has filed a civil suit for partition in respect of other properties, wherein the petitioner has filed a written statement raising an objection that 2/5
the property situated in T.S. No.24 is also available for partition. Hence, it is contended that the Revenue Authorities ought not to pass any order effecting mutation of the revenue records.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the first respondent, submits that the petitioner, in response to the impugned notice, appeared before the first respondent on 24.07.2025 and made a statement before the first respondent raising his objections and the same will be considered in accordance with the law.
6. In view of the fact that the impugned communication is only an enquiry notice, and the petitioner has already appeared before the first respondent and submitted his statement, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the first respondent. If the petitioner wants to raise any further objections, he shall submit the same before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the first respondent shall consider the objections of the petitioner and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as second respondent, within a further period of eight weeks.
3/5
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To 1.The Special Tahsildar, Urban Revenue Scheme Office, Ponmalai Alagu, Tiruchirappalli (West), Tiruchirappalli District.
4/5
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
skn Writ Petition(MD)No.22602 of 2025 20.08.2025 5/5