Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13858/2013disposed of accordingly

Rathinam, v. The District Collector,

2017-12-15Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.12.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.13858 of 2013 Rathinam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai.

4.The Tahsildar, Kulathur at Keeranur, Keeranur Post, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai.

5.Angammal ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the 4th Respondent to pass necessary orders for exchange of patta for S.F. No. 124/1 of Singathakurichi Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, in favour of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents 1 to 4: Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Government Advocate For Respondent -5 :Mr.S.Muthukrishnan

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the fourth respondent to pass necessary orders for exchange of patta for S.F. No. 124/1 of Singathakurichi Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, in favour of the petitioner. 2.Heard both sides.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the land in dispute is a Government Poramboke land, which is adjacent to her property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for years together. Though, she applied for a patta in respect of the above said land, patta was granted to the fifth respondent and the petitioner was given patta in respect of a land, other than the one / the land in dispute, the petitioner sought. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent requesting to interchange the pattas issued to the petitioner and to the fifth respondent. Since, such a claim was not considered, by the first respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. It is seen that the petitioner submitted her representation, in the year 2013 and it is not known whether such a claim still subsists due to passage of time. 6.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought in this writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.06.2013 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the fifth respondent as well as all the interested parties, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if already not passed any orders.

7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar dsk To 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Pudukkottai. 4.The Tahsildar, Kulathur at Keeranur, Keeranur Post, Kulathur Taluk,Pudukkottai.

+1 cc to MR.S.MUTHIKRISHNAN, Advocate SR.No.93062 +1 cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.93326 ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.13858 of 2013 15.12.2017 SMA/SV-MMS/SAR-4/05.01.2017:2P/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/