Administrative authorities must ensure proper document correlation before rejecting claims, emphasizing jurisdiction and responsibility.

ORDER

An order dated 30.01.2021 of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the operative paragraphs of the impugned order and points out that the petitioner's request for relief was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted documents to correlate the survey number mentioned in the judgment in O.S.No.97 of 1952 with the survey numbers mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. Learned counsel contends that the task of correlation should be carried out by the revenue officials and that the request should not have been rejected on that ground.

3. During the course of proceedings, it transpired that the 4^th respondent had expired. After being directed to ascertain whether the 4^th respondent has any legal heirs, learned Additional Government Pleader had reported that the 4^th respondent did not leave behind any legal heirs. In this connection, learned Additional Government Pleader relies upon the report of the District Revenue Officer stating that the 4^th respondent died on 30.05.2020 and that her father, mother, 2 brothers and sister pre-deceased her. In those circumstances, the matter is being proceeded with in the absence of the 4^th respondent or the legal heirs of the said respondent.

4. The operative paragraphs of the impugned order read as under:-

“Jiz epy msit Kbj;J mz;ikapy ele;J Kbe;j NjtNfhli; l efhG; w epytupjj; pl;ljj; py; A thuL; gpshf; 31 efugG; yvz; 24/IA1A gugG; 05110.5 r.kP rej; pahF cilahh; kfd; Ntjk; mk;khs; ngahpYk; 24/1A1B, 24/1A2, 24/1B, 24/2, 24/3, 24/4A, 24/4B, 24/4C, 24/5, 24/6A, 24/6B, 24/7, 24/8, 24/9, 24/10, 24/11, 24/12, 24/13, 24/14, 24/15, 24/16, 24/17 Nghdw; clg; pupTfs;

gll; h jhff; yhfpAs;sJ.

NjtNfhl;il rhuG; ePjpkdw; O.S.No.97/52y; fle;j

02.01.1959y; Kjye; piy jPug; g; hiz> 03.10. 1962y; ,Wjpepiy jPhg; g; hiz kwW; k; 24.07.1964y; ePjpkdw; hprPth; mwpf;if vz.;93d; gb 1 Vff; u; 99 nrd;l; epyk; fle;j 13.05-1964y; kDjhuuplk; rkug; g; pj;Jss; NkyK; iwaPlL; kDtpy; Fwpgg; plL; s;s Gy vzZ; k; xdW; jhd; vdg; jwF; vtt; pjkhd Mtzqf; Sk; rkug; g; pff; gltpy;iy. vdNt> kDjhuupd; kD jsS; gb ”

nraJ; ,jd ; %yk ; cj;jutplgg; LfpwJ.

5. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, paragraph 7 reveals that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner did not provide any documents to correlate the survey number forming the subject of O.S.No.97/52 with the survey numbers mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. This is an exercise that should be undertaken by the revenue officials. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. Towards that end, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Revenue Officer for reconsideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and any other person who would be affected by such order, a fresh order shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

19.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RJR To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer/the Sub Collector, Devakottai, Ramnagar, Sivagangai District

3. The Tahsildar, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RJR W.P(MD)No.2129 of 2022