SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
Tamilarasan S/o.Pachamuthu – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, District Collector Office, Salem District. – Respondent
Writ Petition | Article 226



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Vijayaragavan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik

The court affirmed the necessity for timely governmental action concerning discrepancies in revenue records under the constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:The judgment revolves around Article 226 of the Constitution, addressing a writ of mandamus seeking rectification of revenue records due to discrepancies in land measurements. The court emphasized proper consideration for the petitioner’s representation and directed timely action by the relevant authorities. The court's issue was framed on whether the authorities would adequately address the discrepancies raised by the petitioner. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of rectifying errors during the UDR scheme. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, instructing a decision within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks correction in land records. (Para 1)
2. court listens to both parties. (Para 2)
3. court directs authorities for timely action. (Para 3)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to deal with the representation made by the petitioner on 24.09.2025 wherein the petitioner is seeking necessary corrections in the revenue records by altering the extent as 2.87½ acres of land instead of 2.85 acres of land for the properties comprised in Survey No.124/1A situated at Ernapuram Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

2. Heard Mr.M.Vijayaragavan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the so-called discrepancy has taken place during the UDR scheme, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to deal with the petitioner’s representation dated 24.09.2025 after affording opportunity to the petitioner and all the other interested parties and final orders shall be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top