Madras High Court
Malaiyandi vs The District Revenue Officer on 10 August, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P.(MD)No.14166 of 2015
MALAIYANDI ... Petitioners
Vs.
1 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER
MADURAI DISTRICT MADURAI.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MADURAI. ... Respondents
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondent to
dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 24.03.2015 preferred by him as
against the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6806/2013/K dated
..12.2014 signed by the 2nd respondent on 10.12.2014 in rejecting his
application for grant of patta in respect of Panchami land comprised in
survey No.248/2, Attapatti village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District within
the time limit that may be fixed by this Honble Court.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Rahul
^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
:ORDER
The writ petition has been filed praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 24.03.2015 preferred by him as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6806/2013/K dated ..12.2014 signed by the 2nd respondent on 10.12.2014 in rejecting his application for grant of patta in respect of Panchami land comprised in survey No.248/2, Attapatti village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District within the time limit that may be fixed by this Honble Court.
2. In the affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural panchami land in Sy.No.248/2, Attapatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. He is cultivating the said land for several decades. The said land has been included in the list of panchami lands in Melur Taluk. The petitioner's father's name Mayalagan has been mentioned in the register and the said entry is dated 05.09.1960. In the said register, survey number and extent of the said panchami land is also mentioned. Further, in the very same register, another entry was made in the year 1973 showing that the petitioner's father and the petitioner are the beneficiaries of the said land. Whileso, one Gandhimathi, W/o.Subramanian managed to change the revenue entry in respect of the above land in her favour during UDR survey taking advantage of the official position held by her husband in the post of Village Administrative Officer in Melur Taluk, Madurai District. In this regard, the petitioner made an application seeking to cancel the revenue entry. The said application was submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent and the same is pending before the second respondent. The second respondent remitted the entire matter to the first respondent on the ground that she has no authority to decide the issue. The second respondent has recommended the 1st respondent to change the entry as Government poromboke and also recommended for cancellation of patta issued to the said Gandhimathi. Aggrieved over the order of the second respondent, the petitioner has also preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 24.03.2015 and the said appeal is pending before the first respondent. Even though the petitioner appeared before the first respondent for many hearings, the first respondent has not taken any action to dispose of the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the second respondent is not a competent authority to decide the issue. Hence, she forwarded the application submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent and now, the matter is pending before the first respondent.
4. Heard the submissions made on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
5. Considering the said submissions, without going into the merits of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the appeal submitted by the petitioner on 24.03.2015, by affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in R.SUBBIAH, J.
vs accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
To 1 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER MADURAI DISTRICT MADURAI.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MADURAI..