Kannan @ Muthunayakar.M v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and W.M.P(MD)Nos.19976 & 19977 of 2022 M.Kannan @ Muthunayakar .... Petitioner /Vs/

1. The District Collector Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Chendurai, Dindigul District.

4. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Natham, Dindigul District. .... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.5071/2020/Aa1 dated 17.05.2022 passed by the 4th Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to restore the Petitioner's grandfathers name Sevathaiah Nayakkar instead of Ponnusamy in Patta 1/5

No.1472 in Survey No.1129/6 and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.S.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order of the District Revenue Officer rejecting the request of the petitioner to correct the name of the petitioner's grandfather in the patta.

2. The first respondent, by considering the order dated 17.05.2022, which is impugned in the present writ petition, has found that there is no UDR mistake and therefore, proceeded to reject the request of the petitioner. The petitioner does not seek any change in the name of the pattadhar. The only request of the petitioner is to incorporate the correct name of the petitioner's grandfather namely Sevathaiah Nayakkar instead of Ponnusamy. If at all the first respondent had found that the request for corrections was not as a result of any UDR mistake, the file should have been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting due enquiry as to the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner for correction of the 2/5

grandfather's name and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders. Unfortunately, the petitioner's application has been closed once and for all by the first respondent.

3. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for the change of corrections of the name of the petitioner's grandfather in Patta number 1472 pertaining to survey number 1129/6. The said exercise shall be carried out by conducting enquiry and affording an opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No 25.04.2025 am 3/5

To

1. The District Collector Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Chendurai, Dindigul District.

4. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Natham, Dindigul District.

4/5

P.B. BALAJI , J.

am Order made in Dated:

25.04.2025 5/5