Allowed

Balakrishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19768/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Army personnel sought mandamus to rectify a UDR record error showing his grandfather's land purchased in 1908 as Government property. No enquiry followed representations since 2020. The writ petition was allowed with directions to consider the representation and pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider representation dated 20.05.2024, hold personal hearing, consider documents and pass speaking order within six weeks; no costs.

Balakrishnan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19768 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19768 of 2024

Balakrishnan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.The Sub Collector, Sub Collector Office, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to rectify the mistake made in UDR on the basis of petitioner's

¶15

_________Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.19768 of 2024

¶18

representation dated 20.05.2024 within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Banu Prasath For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner seeks a direction in the form of a mandamus to the respondent to rectify the mistake made in the UDR on the basis of his representation dated 20.05.2024.

¶22

The petitioner, who is a retired Army Personnel would submit

¶23

that his grandfather Ramasamy Konar was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the land situate in S.No.882/11, Idaikal Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, which he had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1908.

¶24

The petitioner would submit that during the UDR scheme, the property has been wrongly registered in the name of the Government. Immediately on coming to know about the same, the petitioner has given

¶25

_________Page 2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.19768 of 2024

¶28

a representation to the second respondent to rectify the mistake. The second respondent has, in turn, forwarded the representation to the third respondent for taking effective steps. However, to date, no steps have been taken in this regard. However, the third respondent has forwarded the representation to the fourth respondent to take action. The petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent has not even conducted an enquiry. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made a detailed representation to the first respondent to take action. Since no steps have been taken, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Admittedly, the petitioner's grandfather appears to have purchased this property as early as in the year 1908 under a registered deed. Representations have been made by the petitioner, who has retired from military service to which no action in the form of an enquiry has taken place. The representations have been made by the petitioner right from the year 2020 and for four years, no action has been taken in this regard. This Writ Petition is therefore allowed, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.05.2024, afford

¶30

_________Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.19768 of 2024

¶33

an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, consider his documents and pass a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶34

20.08.2024

¶35

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

¶36

abr

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶39

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶40

3.The Sub Collector, Sub Collector Office, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶41

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.

¶42

_________Page 4 of 5

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.19768 of 2024

¶45

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶46

abr

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.19768 of 2024

¶48

Dated: 20.08.2024

¶49

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

¶50

_________Page 5 of 5

Balakrishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan v. The District Collector

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

Murugan Vs the District Collector /

Chitra Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Mahaboobpalayam Sunnathul Jamath Masjid Vs The District Collector

Mayalagan Vs The District Collector

Kaliraj Vs The Tahsildar

O.Sethuraman Vs the District Collector