Sethuraman Vs The District Collector

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare that there is no pathway exists towards the southern side of the Petitioner’s property comprised in Old T.S.No.2016/2 and re-surveyed as T.S.No. 2016/2A 4 situated at Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District by considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 24.8.2022 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathiya Chidambaram For Respondents : MrM.Gangatharan 1 to 6 .Govt. Advocate

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The Petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents to declare that there is no pathway in existence s towards the southern side of the Petitioner’s property in Old T.S.No.2016/2 and re-surveyed as T.S.No.2016/2A 4, situated at Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District by considering the Petitioner’s representation, dated 24.8.2022

¶24

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)NO.21164 of 2022

¶28

3.According to the Petitioner, the subject property was purchased by him under registered sale deed, dated 26.9.1994 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by putting up a house therein. Later, the Petitioner came to know that in the FMB for the subject property, there exists a pathway on the southern side. Hence the Petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents on 24.8.2022 seeking rectification in FMB by deleting the reference about the existence of pathway. The same has not been considered so far. Hence the Petitioner has come before this Court with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

¶29

4.In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks declaration that there is no pathway exists in the subject survey number. In the Writ proceedings, this Court cannot into the disputed questions of facts and give a finding with regard to the non-existence of pathway. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the Petitioner.

¶30

5.However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 24.08.20922 and pass final

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)NO.21164 of 2022

¶34

orders on its own merits, after issuing notice to the Petitioner, neighbouring land owners and other interested parties, if any, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of a copy of this order.

¶35