Allowed

Manickam v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC7 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Manickam seeking a writ of mandamus. The court directed the second respondent to correct entries in patta numbers 1718, 1842 and 1505 and dispose of a representation within six weeks after serving notice to interested parties. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2023 and rectify wrong entries in Patta Nos. 1718, 1842 and 1505 within six weeks after giving notice to Ponnus

Manickam Vs The District Revenue Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19082 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19082 of 2024

Manickam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai Revenue Division, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Singampunari Taluk Office, Singampunari, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2023 as early as possible and rectify the patta in respect of Patta Nos.1718, 1842 and 1505 situated at Minnamalai Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶14

_________Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.19082 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhiyan Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Aggrieved by the fact that his representation to the respondent on 01.09.2023 to rectify the wrong entry in Patta Nos.1718, 1842 and 1505 has not been considered to date, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the lands originally belonged to his father and on his death, it devolved on the petitioner and his siblings, when he had made an application for mutating the patta in their name, he came to learn that the patta stood in the name of Ponnusamy, son of Adaikkan, Ranjith, son of Chinnaiah, Alagu, wife of Rajendran and Rajendran, son of Vellaisamy. Therefore, he had made a representation to the respondents to rectify the wrong entry in the patta. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

_________Page 2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.19082 of 2024

¶24

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶25

Considering the case of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is

¶26

allowed directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 01.09.2023 and rectify the wrong entry in the patta within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to Ponnusamy, son of Adaikkan, Ranjith, son of Chinnaiah, Alagu, wife of Rajendran and Rajendran, son of Vellaisamy. No costs.

¶27

07.08.2024

¶28

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶29

abr

¶30

¶31

1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶32

_________Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.19082 of 2024

¶35

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶36

abr

¶37

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai Revenue Division, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶38

3.The Tahsildar, Singampunari Taluk Office, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.19082 of 2024

¶40

Dated: 07.08.2024

¶41

_________Page 4 of 4

¶42

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

Manickam v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manickam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Subramanian @ Mani Vs The District Revenue Officer

Bhaskaran. C Vs The Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Land Reforms

A.Azhageson Vs The District Collector

A.Kamatchi @ Bose Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Dhanavalli. S Vs The District Collector

Batsha Vs The District Collector