Tmt.P.Visalatchi, v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15008 and 15009 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.60 of 2024 P.Visalatchi .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.
2.District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, District Collectorate, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-1, 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Taluk Office, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.
5.Poonkodi .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 18.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to mutate and issue patta in respect of plot number 114 in favour of the petitioner as per the assignment in Na.Ka.Aa.No.279/90 dated 03.11.1995 on the file of the fourth respondent.
For Petitioner :
Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 to R4 :
Mr.J.K.Jeyaselan Government Advocate For R5 :
Mr.K.Muthumalai
ORDER
When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice by Mr.K.Muthumalai, learned counsel, who had filed vakalat on behalf of the fifth respondent that it is not the fifth respondent as show in the writ petition he appears and he appears for the fifth respondent as show in the writ affidavit. She is no way connected with the property to
the claim in the writ petition and it is only the fifth respondent as named in the writ affidavit, who would be the only person aggrieved, if the writ petition is allowed and hence, he would request this Court to serve notice on the correct person by directing the petitioner to take out necessary amendment petition.
2. But, however, the learned Government Advocate had produced communication sent by the Revenue Tahsildar, Thuraiyur to him indicating that an e-patta had been granted in favour of the petitioner for the very same property.
3. In such view of the matter, there would be no useful purpose in directing the petitioner to carry out necessary amendment to bring on record the actual person, who would be aggrieved, if any order is passed in this writ petition.
4. Since the Revenue Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, had already granted patta in favour of the petitioner, notice to the fifth respondent is
dispensed with. However, if she is aggrieved by the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner by the revenue authority, it is for her to exercise her right in the manner known to law.
5. With the aforesaid observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13.11.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr
To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.
2.District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, District Collectorate, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-1, 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Taluk Office, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
abr Dated: 13.11.2024