Disposed¶17

A.Thambiraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC21 Apr 2025WP(MD)/10809/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus; patta extent correction; online Patta No.1900; 47.50 ares versus 54.5 ares; assignment patta; Tahsildar Kodaikanal; RDO proceedings Na.Ka.No.256/2025/a1 dated 20.02.2025; Dindigul District; Article 226 Constitution of India; direction to pass orders within eight weeks; disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application subsequent to the 2nd respondent's proceedings Na.Ka.No.256/2025/a1, dated 20.02.2025, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within eight (8) weeks; no costs awarded. ¶17

A.Thambiraj Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10809 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10809 of 2025

¶7

A.Thambiraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, The District Collector Office, Dindigul District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar herein to forthwith pass orders on the proceeding of the 2 nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer in Na.Ka.No.256/2025/a1, dated 20.02.2025.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Amala For Respondents : Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate

¶10

1/4

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(MD)No.10809 of 2025

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar to pass orders on the petitioner's representation which has been forwarded to the 3 rd respondent by the 2 nd respondent in and by proceedings, dated 20.02.2025.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶16

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued assignment, based on which online Patta No.1900 was also mutated in the name of the petitioner. However, in the said patta, the extent reflected is only 47.50 ares instead of 54.5 ares. In this regard, the petitioner has made an application to the 2 nd respondent for necessary corrections in the extent reflected in the petitioner's patta.

¶17

4. Considering the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3 rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application subsequent to the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.

¶18

2/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.10809 of 2025

¶21

256/2025/a1, dated 20.02.2025 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶23

costs.

¶24

21.04.2025

¶25

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gbg

¶26

To:

¶27