Karmelmary Vs The District Collector

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to expeditiously conduct an enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2022 to cancel the forged patta thereby retrieve the petitioner's assignment land in S.No. 308/2 and Patta No. 2153 Villpatti, Kodaikanal within the stipulate time period fixed by this Court.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.4775 of 2023

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Antony Santhosh For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya, Govt. Advocate

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2022, seeking cancellation of patta issued in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the property situate in S.No. 308/2 and Patta No. 2153 in Villpatti, Kodaikanal.

¶22

2. Heard the arguments of Mr.U.Antony Santhosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Jeya Priya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse order is goting to be passed against the respondents 3 and 4, notice to them is dispensed with.

¶23

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property was originally assigned in favour of petitioner's mother viz., one Lourthu 2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.4775 of 2023

¶26

Mary and after her death, the petitioner and her sister have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents 3 and 4 obtained patta in their name in respect of the very same property by producing fraudulent documents. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent on 28.11.2022, seeking cancellation of patta issued in the name of private respondents and the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶27

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

¶28

respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered on its own merits. She further submitted that the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner is the Sub-Collector, Kodaikanal.

¶29

5. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court directs the competent authority, viz., the Sub-Collector, Kodaikanal to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.11.2022 and pass final orders, on its own merits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.4775 of 2023

¶33

notice to the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4.

¶34

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.