Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1074 (MAD)

Kuppammal v. Special Officer / Special Tahsildar

2012-02-28

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 28.1.2011, by conducting an enquiry and to delete the names of persons, who are not the legal heirs of the Mr.Palayam, in the Town Survey Land Register, and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 2. The case of the petitioner is, that her father-in-law was originally the owner of 9 cents of lands comprised in S.No.475/2, Mugappair Village, Ambathur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The land was purchased from one Mr.Venugoal Mudaliar and Jayaraman Mudaliar, by way of registered sale deed dated 07.06.1927. In addition to the purchased land, he also possessed and enjoyed another 9 cents of land, adjacent to this land on the southern side. 3. On the death of Mr.Perumal, father-in-law of the petitioner, his only son Mr.Palayam, husband of the petitioner succeeded to his estate. The husband of petitioner and other family members are enjoying the property, as absolute owners of the property. 4. This averment on the face of it cannot be accepted, as the land was inherited by Mr.Palayam as per the pleadings itself. On the death of husband of petitioner, that the land could be inherited by petitioner and other legal heirs on 12.03.1992. 5. The case of the petitioner is that one Mr.Suresh, S/o. Mr.Settu started interfering with the possession of petitioner, though he had no right in the property, being not the legal heir of Perumal, as Palayam was only legal heir. 6. The case of petitioner is that respondent informed the petitioner that name of Mr.Suresh is entered in the revenue record, therefore, is entitled to enjoy the common passage. 7. The case of petitioner further is that on verification, entry was found, therefore, the petitioner has prayed the respondent to correct the entry. 8. The representation placed on record does not show any petition filed with the respondent no.1 in accordance with statutory provisions of law. The petitioner has simply filed representation with the 1st respondent without following due process of law. As per statutory requirement, the petitioner is required to file application in accordance with Statute. It is on the application, which is filed as per requirement of law that any action can be taken thereon, and not on mere representation. 9. The petitioner has simply filed representation with the 1st respondent without following due process of law. As per statutory requirement, the petitioner is required to file application in accordance with Statute. It is on the application, which is filed as per requirement of law that any action can be taken thereon, and not on mere representation. 9. The Tahsildar is to give notice to all the concerned parties, and pass quasi judicial order. In absence of any pending statutory application before respondent no.1, no writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued as prayed for, merely on representations, as there is no legal obligation to deal with representations, when the dispute raised is regulated by a statute. 10. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.