Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2315 (MAD)

Ponnaiah v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2016-07-18

M.VENUGOPAL

body2016
ORDER : Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the land in S. No. 316/4, measuring an extent of 1 acre and 48 cents, out of total extent of 2 acre and 96 cents (1.20.00 hectares) situated at Ikkaraikosikurichi Village, Kallupatti, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District, originally under Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. In fact, the Second Respondent/The Tahsildar, Kallupatti, Marungapuri Taluk, Manapparai, Trichy District, had issued the patta bearing No.1360 for the said land in favour of the Petitioner, wherein, a mistake was committed by the Second Respondent/The Tahsildar, Kallupatti, Marungapuri Taluk, Manapparai, Trichy District in respect of his Father's name, which was wrongly recorded as 'Chellan', but his father's name is 'Ponnaiah'. 5. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that in order to show that the Petitioner's Father's name is Ponnaiah, he had enclosed Adhar Identity Card, Election Identity Card and Pattas issued by the Second Respondent in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the lands in S. No. 296/4 and S. No. 312/6 situated in the very same village. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had addressed many representations to the Respondents and also in person in the camp held under the leadership of the Second Respondent on 15.6.2016 requesting the Respondents to correct the name of his father in Patta No. 1360 in respect of S. No. 316/4 and Chitta. Again on 20.6.2016, the Petitioner had submitted another representation before the First Respondent and also on 8.7.2016, he gave another petition in the camp held under the leadership of the Second Respondent in person. In short, all the representations of the Petitioner had proved futile. Hence he has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 7. Again on 20.6.2016, the Petitioner had submitted another representation before the First Respondent and also on 8.7.2016, he gave another petition in the camp held under the leadership of the Second Respondent in person. In short, all the representations of the Petitioner had proved futile. Hence he has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 7. In view of the fact that the Petitioner had lastly addressed a petition before the Second Respondent/The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kallupatti, Marungapuri Taluk, Manapparai, Trichy District, wherein, they had sought for change of name in the patta in S.No.316/4 on the ground patta No.1360, at this stage, this Court, to secure the ends of justice, directs the Second Respondent/The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kallupatti, Marungapuri Taluk, Manapparai, Trichy District to look into the representation of the Petitioner, dated 8.7.2016 and his earlier representations, dated 15.6.2016 and 20.6.2016 and to dispose of the same on merits by passing a reasoned speaking order by outlining the process of reasoning in a quantitative and qualitative fashion (of course after providing necessary opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, if any by adhering to the principles of natural justice in true letter and spirit) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the Second Respondent is in need of necessary copies of records/documents from the hands of the Petitioner, then it is incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to supply the certified copies of relevant documents/records at an early date, so as to enable the Second Respondent to satisfy the requirements of the Petitioner within the time prescribed by this Court. The Petitioner is directed to lend his assistance and co-operation to the Second Respondent in disposing of the Petitioner's representation, dated 8.7.2016, within the time adumbrated by this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.