C. Chandrasekara Kurukkal v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P(MD).No.5516 of 2016 C.Chandrasekara Kurukkal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Collectorate complex, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The District Revenue Officer and Additional District Adjudicator, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keelakarai Taluk, Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Pa.Mu.91055/2013 dated 23.05.2014 on the file of the second respondent, which was confirming the order of the third respondent in O.Mu.A6/1242/2013 dated 11.10.2013 and quash the same as null and void and to direct the fourth respondent to issuance of patta to the petitioner to the extent of 0.54.0 hectres in Sy.no.91/1D situate at Thiru uthragosamangai.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Pa.Mu.91055/2013 dated 23.05.2014 on the file of the second respondent, confirming the order of the third respondent in O.Mu.A6/1242/2013 dated 11.10.2013 and quash the same as null and void and to direct the fourth respondent to issue patta to the petitioner to the extent of 0.54.0 hectres in S.No. 91/1D situated at Thiru Uthragosamangai.

2/5

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is owner of the land in S.No.91/1D situated at Thiru Uthragosamangai. The petitioner filed an application before the third respondent for grant of patta in his favour and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent and the same was also dismissed. Challenging, the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 100 years and without considering the material evidence, the above orders have been passed by the respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, he prays for appropriate orders.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of the property and he has no valid document to prove his title. He has also filed a counter affidavit to that effect before this Court. 3/5

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent Civil Court. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.03.2023 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No tta To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Collectorate complex, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The District Revenue Officer and Additional District Adjudicator, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keelakarai Taluk, Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI,J tta Order made in Dated : 02.03.2023 5/5