Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
P.Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Office Of Ranipet – Respondent
WP No. 41306 of 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of familial ownership and historical property use. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by counsel for both parties. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on proper procedural action. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's directives on approaching the appropriate authority. (Para 7) |
| 5. writ petition disposed with specific orders. (Para 8) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the
3rd respondent dated 04.07.2025 and for a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to the subject property.
2. Heard Mr.R.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Ravichandran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property belonged to his great grand father. Thereafter, the grand father of the petitioner and the other villagers constructed a temple in a portion of the land and it was maintained by all of them. However, the revenue records were continued in the individual names and not in the name of the temple.
4. During the UDR proceedings, the patta was assigned in favour of some of the third parties, who had nothing to do with the subject property. Accordingly, after coming to know of the same, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the 3rd respondent seeking for cancellation of patta that was granted in favour of third parties and to restore the patta to its original state.
5. The 3rd respondent in the impugned proceedings has stated that the patta was transferred during the UDR scheme based on the proceedings of the DRO and hence, the petitioner has to necessarily submit the representation before the DRO and seek for the appropriate remedy.
6. In the considered view of this Court, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner ought to have approached the 2nd respondent and sought for the correction of the revenue records and instead, the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent. Only the 2nd respondent is vested with the power to revise the order passed during the UDR scheme.
7. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent by filing a revision along with all the relevant documents and on receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall act upon the representation /
revision, after affording opportunity to the petitioner and other interested parties and pass final orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation / revision from the petitioner.
8. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
