Allowed

V. Shanmugananthan, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC6 Jun 2022WP(MD)/4132/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a patta rectification request by the Tahsildar, the Madurai Bench held that only the District Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to correct patta discrepancies during UDR proceedings. The order was set aside, the matter remitted to the District Revenue Officer for fresh consideration within eight weeks, and the petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the District Revenue Officer for fresh consideration within eight weeks.

V. Shanmugananthan, Vs the District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.4132 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.(MD).No.4132 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012

¶6

V.Shanmuganathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶7

2.The Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District.

¶8

3.Pandiammal 4.Sakthi 5.Nathiya 6.Natryan 7.M.Karuppusamy

¶9

8.Kamalam

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

(R-3 to R-8 impleaded vide Court order dated 06.03.2020 in W.M.P.(MD).No.4137 of 2017)

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.O.Mu.18018/2010A2 dated 15.02.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to submit the enquiry report after conducting enquiry as per the direction of the first respondent in O.Mu.No.39057/2008G2 dated 13.06.2008.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar, 1 & 2 Additional Government Pleader

¶15

(*) For R3 to R7 : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.4132 of 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the second respondent herein, under which his request for patta has been rejected.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he is the owner of Survey Nos.362/14A and 362/14C in A.Kovilpatti Village, Kurichipatti Block Vellaloor, Melur Taluk. During UDR proceedings, instead of the petitioner's name, his relatives name have been erroneously included in the patta. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the District Revenue Officer on 13.05.2008 to rectify the said mistake. The District Revenue Officer called for a report from the Tahsildar on 13.06.2008. Instead of conducting an enquiry and sending report to the first respondent, the second respondent has proceeded to pass an order rejecting the request of the writ petitioner. The said order is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶22

It is a settled position of law that wherever discrepancies appear in the patta during UDR proceedings, the power is vested only with the first respondent and not with the second respondent to rectify the same. In the present case, without any jurisdiction, the second respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order on 15.02.2011. Hence, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent for fresh consideration and passing of orders. The said exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner and the rival claimants, if any.

¶23

This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶25

(*)Corrected as per the order of this Court dated 01/08/2022 made in W.P.(MD).No.4132 of 2011

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

gbg

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.4132 of 2011

¶34

¶35

(*) To be substituted to the order already despatched on 14/06/2022

¶36

1.The District Revenue Officer,

¶37

Madurai, Madurai District.

¶38

2.The Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.T. ANTONY ARUL RAJ, Advocate ( SR-24313[F] dated 06/06/2022 )

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-24389[F] dated 07/06/2022 )

¶41

+1. CC to M/S.S.A.AJMAL KHAN, Advocate SR.No.35156

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.4132 of 2011 06.06.2022

¶43

RK(13/06/2022) 3P 5C RD(05/08/2022) 3P 6C

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

3/3

V. Shanmugananthan, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Shanmugananthan, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Abdul Aziz (Died) Vs M. Sheik Abdul Khader

T.Angaiyar Kanni Vs v. Muthuramalingam (Died)

Ramesh Kumar.R Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M.Abimannan Vs the Branch Manager

Pmr Matriculation Higher Vs the District Registrar of

S.a.Ayyakannu Vs the District Collector