The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order deleting the petitioner's name from a UDR entry in favor of a temple. The court held the petitioner could establish rights in a Civil Court and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.10979 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.(MD)No.10979 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
... Petitioner
Ayyar Thevar
versus
Special Officer, (Temple Lands), Madurai.
Madurai District.
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent dated 30.12.2010 in proceeding Na.Ka.No.A/191/2010 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For R1 and R3 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj,
Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.S.Manohar
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the order passed by the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer, Madurai in Na.Ka.No.A/191/2010, dated 30.12.2010, on the appeal filed by the second respondent as against the UDR entry made in favour of the petitioner.
1/3
W.P.(MD)No.10979 of 2011
impugned order has been passed after 29 years without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
UDR entry has wrongly been made during UDR survey and the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer is the competent authority to rectify any mistake committed in the UDR entry. Therefore, appeal was preferred before the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer along with the relevant documents. After verifying the documents/records, the first respondent/the District Revenue Officer passed the impugned order, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
Sd/-
// True Copy //
04/05/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
To
2/3
W.P.(MD)No.10979 of 2011
+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-17937[F] dated 11/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.S. MANOHAR, Advocate ( SR-18047[F] dated 12/04/2022 )
W.P.(MD)No.10979 of 2011 08.04.2022
NSN(CO) KB(05.05.2022) 3P 6C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should intervene in the impugned order deleting the petitioner's name in a UDR entry regarding temple land.
Whether an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before the District Revenue Officer passed the order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ayyar Thevar
The District Revenue Officer, Special Officer, (Temple Lands), Madurai
The Executive Officer, A/M Valakkamal Temple, Elumalai Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District
The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District
B. Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
