CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 01 MAD CK 0242

P. Pachiayappan vs The District Collector, Collector Office, Villupuram District, Villupuram 604304 and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 15969 of 2011
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 336 words

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 23.04.2010 filed by the petitioner. The pleaded case of the petitioner, is that he is absolute owner of the property bearing Old Survey No. 201/4, New Survey No. 121/3 measuring 0.05.0 cents of vacant land in Mailam Post, Thenalampakkam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. The property was purchased by the petitioner on 27.01.2009. After purchase of the property, the petitioner applied for grant of patta.

2.

Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the property was standing in the name of Mannammal and Anjalai (4th and 5th respondent) and entry in Natham Chitta Adangal (A-Register) was also in the name of Thennammal (7th respondent) and Anjalai. The said names were said to be overwritten in the register.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that Mannammal, Thennammal and Mrs. Anjalai are in no way concerned with this property and these said persons colluded with the Village Administrative Officer, and Village Assistant have created this document.

4.

The petitioner claims to have made a representation in this regard.

5.

The reading of the affidavit, shows that no case is made out for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to Respondent No. 1, as he is not a competent authority to address the grievance raised by the petitioner.

6.

The remedy with the petitioner is to approach the Tahsildar who is competent under Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, and thereafter to avail statutory appeal and revision and finally file civil suit.

7.

The respondent No. 1 could not have taken any decision on the representation since he is not competent to do so. In absence of legal obligation on the part of Respondent No. 1 to decide the representation, no writ in the nature of Mandamus can be issued. Consequently, the writ Petition being misconceived is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.