Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.03.2024 and pass final orders on its own merit and…
Judgment
W.P.No.23618 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20.08.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARW.P.No.23618 of 2024M.Shanmugam... Petitionervs.
The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
The Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate, Krishnagiri.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2020 and 21.03.2024 with regard to making corrections in the village revenue records in respect of Petitioner's land in S.No.310/1C in Puliyampatti Village, 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23618 of 2024 Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District by rectifying the error in the extent of land as 0.28.5 hectares (70 cents) instead of 0.19.50 hectares (48 cents) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a stipulated time by this Court. For Petitioner: Mr.R.ThamaraiselvanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government PleaderO R D E RThe petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representations dated 03.06.2020 and 21.03.2024 seeking correction of revenue records in respect of the property situated in S.No.310/1C in Puliyampatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District.2. According to the petitioner, he and his brother-M.Palani purchased 70 cents of land equivalent to 0.28.5 hectares of land situated in S.No.310/1C under a registered Sale Deed in the year 1965 registered as 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23618 of 2024 Document No.575/1965 on the file of Sub Registrar Officer, Barur. The said land was sub-classified and new sub-division number was assigned in 310/1C. The patta was also issued in Patta No.1514. However, the extent of the property was wrongly mentioned as 48 cents equivalent to 0.19.50 hectare. Therefore, the petitioner submitted various representations to the respondents seeking correction of extent mentioned in the sub-division number. The last of the representation of the petitioner was made on 21.03.2024 and the same has not been considered by the respondents till date. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader, who is taking notice for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.03.2024 will be considered by the 2nd respondent on its own merit within the time fixed by this Court.
Operative part
In view of the same, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.03.2024 and pass final orders on its own merit and in accordance with law, within a period of six 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23618 of 2024weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 20.08.2024Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Nodm4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23618 of 2024To 1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2. The Tahsildar, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District. 3. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate, Krishnagiri.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23618 of 2024S.SOUNTHAR, J.dmW.P.No.23618 of 202420.08.20246/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.