Disposed

M.Sekar v. the Chairman

Madras HC18 Apr 2024WP/10536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to rectify errors in the Family Tree prepared by the Tahsildar concerning his paternal uncle's names. Counsel limited the prayer to a direction to consider the representation dated 29.08.2023. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider it and pass orders, if necessary after enquiry, within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to consider representation dated 29.08.2023 and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

M.Sekar Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.10536 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

¶7

W.P.No.10536 of 2024

M.Sekar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II/ Additional Secretary to Government, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare (CV 3) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents

¶15

Page 1

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.10536 of 2024

¶18

Prayer

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to rectify the details given by the Tahsildar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District, the 4^th respondent herein, in the Family Tree of the petitioner, as to the names of the petitioner's paternal uncle as Mr.Pallan instead of China thaai and Sivasakthi instead of Sakthi based on his representation dated 29.08.2023.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )

¶23

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to rectify the details given by the Tahsildar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District, the 4^th respondent herein, in the Family Tree of the petitioner, as to the names of the petitioner's paternal uncle as Mr.Pallan instead of China thaai and Sivasakthi instead of Sakthi, based on his representation dated 29.08.2023.

¶24

Page 2

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.10536 of 2024

¶27

2.Even though a positive direction is sought for in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.08.2023. The petitioner has grievance about the error in the Genealogy Tree that has been drawn by the Tahsildar/4^th respondent. The petitioner wants to correct the mistake and hence, submitted a representation to the respondents.

¶28

3.Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer that is now sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's contention in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the 4^th respondent/Tahsildar is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 29.08.2023, and pass appropriate orders, if necessary after holding an enquiry, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

Page 3

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.10536 of 2024

¶32

4.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶33

(S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 18.04.2024

¶34

mkn

¶35

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶36

¶37

1.The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II/ Additional Secretary to Government, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare (CV 3) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶38

2.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶39

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶40

4.The Tahsildar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

¶41

Page 4

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.10536 of 2024

¶44

S.S. SUNDAR, J. and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶45

mkn

¶46

W.P.No.10536 of 2024

¶47

18.04.2024

¶48

Page 5

¶49

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

M.Sekar v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sekar v. the Chairman

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

V.R.Raghunathan Vs The Additional chief secretary to Government

H.Haroon Vs The District Collector

A.Soundara Raajan Vs The Secretary to Govt

G.Johny, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Syed Rabith Vs the District Collector

M/S.Psd Aqua Vs the Chief Engineer