Allowed

Rajalakshmi.S v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC25 Aug 2021WP(MD)/15077/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing revenue authorities to consider her representation for patta and mutation of land after a sale deed, following alleged unilateral recategorization of land.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2021 and dispose of it by a reasoned order within three months after providing reasonable opportunity.

Rajalakshmi.S Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15077 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD)No.15077 of 2021

S.Rajalakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶9

Revenue Divisional Office,

¶10

Melur, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.07.2021 and to issue patta in her name regarding the properties in RSR.No.26/6A, Plot No.5A, an total extent of 2014 ½ square feet in SSK Nagar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and to do the necessary mutation in the revenue records of Chitta, A-Register and Adangal to denote as the petitioner is the owner of the above said properties,

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Mohamed Abbas For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.Baskaran, Counsel for State

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner seeks the issuance of a patta in respect of the properties in RSR.No.26/6A, Plot No.5A, of an extent of 2014 ½ square foot in SSK Nagar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District

¶17

According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property was purchased by her under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2010, which was registered as Document No.1164 / 2010. The petitioner claims that the said land was assigned to the original assignee under the category of non-panchamar landless poor individuals. Such assignment was subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of ten years. It is stated that the predecessor in title of the petitioner had conveyed the land after the lapse of the aforesaid ten year period.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P(MD)No.15077 of 2021

¶21

In these circumstances, the petitioner alleges that the second respondent removed his name from the revenue records and denoted the land as poromboke and also mutated the revenue records to indicate that the lands are Panjamar Tharisu. The petitioner states that the aforesaid unilateral mutation of the revenue records is contrary to proceedings dated 06.07.2012 of the District Collector, Madurai. After submitting a representation dated 03.07.2021, the present Writ Petition is filed in view of the non-consideration of such representation.

¶22

Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner has produced the sale deed dated 20.06.2008 in favour of her vendor. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner dated 05.03.2010 has also been produced. In addition, the petitioner has produced a copy of the patta in the name of the petitioner's vendors. As such, the petitioner has produced sufficient material to warrant consideration of her representation.

¶24

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the first respondent herein is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2021 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and any other person who would be affected by such decision. Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.15077 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms without any order as to costs.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (RECORDS)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

tsg

¶30

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P(MD)No.15077 of 2021

¶33

¶34

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Melur, Madurai District.

¶35

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Melur, Madurai District.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP (SR-27366[F] dated 26/08/2021)

¶37

W.P(MD)No.15077 of 2021 25.08.2021

¶38

PS(CO) SB(03.09.2021) 3P 4C

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

3/3

Rajalakshmi.S v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajalakshmi.S v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivanthipatti Nadar Hr.Sec.School Managing Board Vs the Dist.Educational Officer

Arul Singh. A.V. Vs The Executive Engineer

Durai.N Vs the Joint Sub Registrar No I

Anna University Tirunelveli Self-Financing Vs Union of India

R.Venkataraman Vs Thiru K. Phanindra Reddy IAS

Gopalakrishnan.M Vs the District Collector