K.Ramachandran Vs the District Collector

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's Representation dated 16.06.2025 thereby cancelling the Patta bearing patta No.1 in New Survey No.318/2A admeasuring an extent of 24 1/2 cents (kheezhandai) out of 49 cents, situated at Chettipunniyam village, Chengalpattu Taluk and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to issue Patta for the said property in Petitioner's favour within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.N.Lavanya

¶29

For R-1 to R-3 & R-7 : Mr.P.Ganesan,

¶30

Government Advocate

¶31

For R-4 to R-6 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (HR &CE)

¶32

2

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 29732 of 2025

¶35

ORDER

¶36

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken

¶37

up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶38

This present petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing

¶39

respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 16.06.2025 whereby the

¶40

petitioner has sought for cancellation of patta that stands in the name of 6th respondent in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.318/2A measuring an extent of Acre 0.24 ½ cents, situated at Chettipunniyam Village,

¶41

Chengalpattu District.

¶42

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally

¶43

the petitioner's grandmother namely Pottiyammal had purchased the subject property from one Parthasarathi Ayyangar by way of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.3104/1956 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Chengalpattu in the year 1956. After the demise of his grandmother, the

¶44

petitioner being the only legal heir, had approached the Village Administrative

¶45

3

¶46

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

¶47

WP No. 29732 of 2025

¶48

Officer, Chettipunniyam Village for issuance of kist receipt however, the same

¶49

was rejected on the premise that the Old Survey No.318/2 has been sub-divided

¶50

as Survey No.318/2A and 2B. Further, the patta with respect to new Survey No.318/2A has been mutated in favour of the 6 th respondent in Patta No.1 under

¶51

UDR Scheme inspite of the fact that the said portion of the property belongs to

¶52

the petitioner's maternal grandmother.

¶53

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶54

though the petitioner had made several representations to the respondent authorities with regard to mutation of patta which now stands in the name of the

¶55

th 6 respondent, till date no action has been taken on the same. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 15.03.2025 to the 3 rd respondent, however, the same was not considered. In this regard, the petitioner also sent a representation dated 16.06.2025 to the respondents 1 to 3 however, the same is yet to be disposed of by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶56

4

¶57

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

¶58

WP No. 29732 of 2025

¶59

At the outset, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for

¶60

respondents 1 to 3 & 7 would submit that that petitioner ought to have submitted a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer. If any such representation is filed before the RDO, the same would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed, in accordance with law, within a time frame

¶61

to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶62

In view of the limited relief that is prayed, this court is inclined to

¶63

dispose of the writ petition with following directions:

¶64

i) It is open to the petitioner to submit a representation before the RDO.

¶65

ii) If any such representation is submitted, the RDO shall consider the

¶66

same, after issuing notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to

¶67

the petitioner, 6th respondent and all other interested parties including rival claimants, if any and dispose of, within a period of twelve weeks from the date

¶68

of filing of any such representation.

¶69

5

¶70

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

¶71

WP No. 29732 of 2025

¶72

iii) Though facts have been set out in affidavit, in view of the limited

¶73

relief that is sought to be granted, I do not propose to examine the same, lest it

¶74

may influence the authority. The authority shall independently consider the facts

¶75

and law set out in the representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law including but not limited to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act and Rules.

¶76

iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with

¶77

regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. R ights and

¶78

contentions of the petitioner and all other interested parties are left open.

¶79

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no

order as to costs.

14-08-2025

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No Nhs