Amutha v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :15.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Amutha ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul Division Dindigul District.

4. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

5. Radhakrishnan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to cancel the erroneous UDR Patta No.1793 issued in the name of Late.Ramaraj for 3 Acres 71 Cents comprised in Survey No.706/2 and take necessary steps to issue a joint patta including all the legal heirs of the petitioners 1/5

maternal grandfather Ramasamy Naidu in respect of 1 Acre 85 Cents comprised in Survey No.706/2 situated at Viralipatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District on the basis of her representation dated 30.07.2025 and 01.09.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.S.Rengasamy for R5

O R D E R

By relying on sale deed dated 13.07.1973 (Document No.1787 of 1973) in the name of the petitioner's grandfather, the petitioner had submitted representation dated 30.07.2025 and 01.09.2025 alleging that there are UDR errors in relation to Survey No.706/2.

2. Learned Additional Government Pleader, who appears on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, has placed on record written instructions received by him and a copy of the re-inquiry notice. He submits that the District Revenue Officer would conduct an inquiry and pass orders on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the fifth respondent.

2/5

3. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent contends that there is no UDR error and that the petitioner has failed to provide any evidence that a UDR error was committed. He also points out that a partition suit was filed by the petitioner and that this property has not been included in the schedule of such partition suit.

4. In these circumstances, without making any observations on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the District Revenue Officer to conduct an inquiry in relation to the petitioner's application and issue a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the fifth respondent and any other person who would be affected by such order. Such speaking order shall be issued within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 15.10.2025 PKN 3/5

To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul Division Dindigul District.

4. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

4/5

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.

PKN ORDER MADE IN 15.10.2025 5/5