Petitioner challenged patta entries in favor of private respondents, claiming error during UDR. Court directed District Revenue Officer to consider the error, notice interested parties, and pass a final order within twelve weeks.
District Revenue Officer directed to consider revision, notice interested persons, and pass final order within twelve weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.10955 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.10955 of 2019
P.Chinniah ... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue patta in the petitioner's name, lands in Patta No.721 S.No.28/7B,
W.P.(MD)No.10955 of 2019
Patta No.125.3 S.No.28/7C, Patta No.2545 S.No.18/1A, Patta No.640 S.No.120/8B-2F, 120/8B-2H, 120/8B-21, 18/4B1, 28/4A, 34/2A7 situated at Sirukudi Revenue Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District and to cancel the pattas wrongly given in the name of the respondents 5 to 10, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 14.03.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Murugan For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader For R6, R7 & R9 : No Appearance
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader for the official respondents. Some of the private respondents have been served, but they have not chosen to enter appearance.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the property in question belonged to his maternal grandfather viz., Vellaichamy. The petitioner would further contend that his mother Pitchaiammal was his only daughter. While so, during UDR by mistake the name of the private respondents was entered. The petitioner wants the same to be cancelled.
The petitioner also seeks issuance of patta in his favour.
W.P.(MD)No.10955 of 2019
3.If any error was committed during UDR, the authority competent to correct the same is that District Revenue Officer. It is well settled that there is no limitation for filing such a revision petition. The petitioner is permitted to file a petition before the second respondent. The second respondent shall consider the same and pass final order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks, after receipt of the revision petition. The second respondent shall put all the interested persons on notice before passing final orders.
costs.
20.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmk To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Collector Office, Dindigul Post and District.
W.P.(MD)No.10955 of 2019
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
rmk
W.P.(MD)No.10955 of 2019
20.12.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Revenue Officer has the authority to correct entries made during UDR and issue a patta in the petitioner's name.
Whether there is a time limit for filing a revision petition for correction of UDR errors.
P.Chinniah
District Revenue Officer
District Collector
Revenue Divisional Officer
Tahsildar
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
