Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3137 (MAD)

S. Arunachalam v. District Revenue Officer, Karur

2019-11-14

M.SUNDAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to correct UDR correction and issue patta to the petitioner with regard to lands in S.No. 543/1, 543/2 and 543/3 situated at Pannaipatti Village, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District based on the petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2018. 1. Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.B.Bhagawathi, learned Government Advocate on behalf of both respondents are before this Court. 2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3. The main writ petition turns on a very narrow compass, as it is one seeking mandamus qua disposal of writ petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2018 wherein writ petitioner has sought rectification/correction of error in classification of land which according to writ petitioner has occurred during updation i.e., UDR scheme. 4. Notwithstanding several averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, notwithstanding several grounds raised /contentions urged in the affidavit filed in support of instant writ petition, learned counsel for writ petitioner abridges the scope of the writ petition and submits that it will suffice if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the aforementioned representation of the writ petitioner, dated 15.10.2018, details of which have been alluded to supra. 5. Learned State counsel submitted that the first respondent is the authority who shall consider the aforementioned representation dated 15.10.2018 made by the writ petitioner (page No.15 of the typed set of papers forming part of the case file). 6. The aforesaid representation dated 15.10.2018 shall be disposed of by the first respondent on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. To be noted, there is an Executive Order i.e., G.O.Ms.No.385, dated 17.08.2004 regarding requests for rectification of errors inter alia on the ground that it had occurred during UDR scheme and the relevant portion of G.O is paragraph 5, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 8. In the instant case, what shall be borne in mind by first respondent is, according to writ petitioner, original classification was “TAMIL” whereas it was erroneously shown as “TAMIL” in UDR scheme. In the instant case, what shall be borne in mind by first respondent is, according to writ petitioner, original classification was “TAMIL” whereas it was erroneously shown as “TAMIL” in UDR scheme. If it is “TAMIL”, it is a water body. Therefore, first respondent shall bear in mind the principles laid down by this Court by a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ 2015 (5) LW 397 ]. Also to be noted, what impelled this Court to accede to this simple prayer for considering the representation on its own merits is, writ petitioner had earlier been granted patta in Patta No.671 for Survey Nos.543/1, 543/2, 543/3 and subsequently issued with patta for Survey No.543/4 classifying the lands in question as “TAMIL”. It is also made clear that scope of disposal of representation by first respondent shall be limited to examining error if any and it had occurred. 9. To be noted, in the course of the representation being considered by the first respondent, if the rights of any other third party/parties or any other third party entity/entities is/are likely to be affected, the first respondent shall give reasonable opportunity to such third party/parties or any other third party entity/entities, before disposing of the aforementioned writ petitioner's representation. Though obvious, it is also to be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter. The authority concerned shall not embark upon any exercise which is within the domain of civil Court jurisdiction. 10. The proceeding/order of disposal shall be communicated by the office of the first respondent to the writ petitioner and others concerned (if any) under due acknowledgement within seven (7) working days from the completion of aforesaid exercise. 11. Instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.