Madras High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 July, 2021
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021
Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirumangalam.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thirupparankundram Taluk,
Madurai District.
4.V.K.Babu ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2
and 3 to forward the proposal for correcting the error occurred during UDR
survey and directing the first respondent to pass orders merging survey
Nos.318/3A and 318/3B into survey No.318/3 in the name of the petitioner
within a time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
Government Advocate for R1 to R3.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner is seeking for the correction of the error that took place during the UDR scheme.
2.The case of the petitioner is that her father purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed, dated 03.02.1950. The further case of the petitioner is that even the settlement 'A' register stood in his name and a patta pass book was also issued in his name in patta No.422. It is stated that he had executed a registered will in favour of his wife and conferred her with life estate and the vested remainder was given in favour of the children.
3.It is stated that the father of the petitioner died, on 01.04.1974 and her mother died, on 17.03.1984. Thereafter, the property devolved upon the petitioner and her sister. They entered into a partition in the year 1986 through a registered partition deed, dated 14.02.1986. Thereby, the subject property was allotted in favour of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/6 W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that during the UDR scheme, the subject property was subdivided and patta No.1368 was granted in favour of the petitioner for S.No.318/3A and patta No.288 was granted in favour of the father of the fourth respondent in S.No.318/3B. Therefore, the petitioner made an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer to correct this mistake and to remove the subdivision.
5.According to the petitioner, an enquiry was also conducted and thereafter, no orders were passed. In the meantime, the fourth respondent had approached the surveyor to survey the property and this was objected by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, made an appeal before the second respondent, on 24.07.2020, for cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the fourth respondent. A notice was issued and the petitioner was directed to work out her remedy before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that there has been absolutely no progress in the enquiry and the fourth respondent is trying to take advantage of the wrong subdivision that took place in the UDR scheme. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, seeking for appropriate directions.
6.Heard Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/6 W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021 and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
7.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to immediately forward the entire records to the file of the first respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent on receipt of the same, shall issue notice to the petitioner and the fourth respondent and deal with the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. The first respondent shall pass final orders, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
8.The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent along with all relevant documents and also a copy of this order. A copy of the representation shall also be marked to the first respondent.
9.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
22.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
TM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam.
3.The Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/6 W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
TM W.P(MD)No.12343 of 2021 22.07.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/6