Allowed

A.Angana Gounder v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC23 Oct 2024WP(MD)/10106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to compel enquiry into his representations against patta issuance to third parties over his allotted ancestral land. Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the representations within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to R1 to consider and dispose of petitioner's representations dated 28.02.2024 and 04.04.2024 on merits within 8 weeks.

A.Angana Gounder Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.10106 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.10106 of 2024

A.Angana Gounder

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani,

¶11

Dindigul District.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶13

3.T.Arulsamy

¶14

4.R.Subramanian ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry on petitioner's representation / appeal dated 28.02.2024 and 04.04.2024 and dispose the same within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.10106 of 2024

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry on petitioner's representation/ appeal dated 28.02.2024 and 04.04.2024 and dispose of the same.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the property in S.Nos.505, 506/1 and 507 situated at Porulur Village, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District is his ancestral property and on 26.09.1988, the aforesaid property had been partitioned between the family members vide Doc.No.871/1988 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Keeranur, pursuant to which the petitioner was allotted the share of property in S.No.507, measuring an extent of 1.28 acres. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and was cultivating the said land and property tax has also been paid without fail.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.10106 of 2024

¶26

While so, to his shock and surprise, the petitioner came to know that the

¶27

property in S.No.507, which was assigned to him during partition, has been subdivided as S.Nos.507/1D, 507/1C and 507/2A and the respondents 3 and 4 have been issued with patta in patta Nos.2602 and 2819 respectively for the aforesaid property. Immediately thereafter, he made a representation to the second respondent/the Tahsildar, to cancel aforesaid pattas and to issue separate patta in his favour. Though the survey has been conducted, no effective steps were taken

¶28

by the second respondent to issue separate patta. Therefore, the petitioner on 28.02.2024 and 04.04.2024 has made yet another representations to the respondents 1 and 2 requesting the the very same relief, but no action was taken. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶30

Considering the request of the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner has made his representation as early as February, 2024, a Mandamus is issued to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 28.02.2024 and 04.04.2024 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.10106 of 2024

¶34

with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶36

Speaking : Yes / No 23.10.2024 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶37

¶38

¶39

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani,

¶40

Dindigul District.

¶41

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶42

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

¶43

4/5

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.10106 of 2024

¶45

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶46

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.10106 of 2024

¶48

23.10.2024

¶49

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

¶50

5/5

A.Angana Gounder v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Angana Gounder 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinnasamy Vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Selvaraj, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajalakshmi Vs The District Revenue Officer

Santhappan Vs the Special District Revenue

S.Renganathan Vs Mohana Sundaram

Muneeswari Vs The District Collector