Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
GOVINDARAJU S/o.Suruttaiya Udayar, SUGANTHA W/o.Govindaraju – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector Collectorate, Salem District, The District Revenue Officer Collectorate, Salem District, The Revenue Divisional Officer Salem Division, TAHSILDAR Vazahpadi Taluk, Block Development Officer Ayyothiyapattinam Panchayat Union – Respondent
Writ Petition | WP No.4466 of 2018 | OS No.694 of 2022 | AS No.201/2003

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B. Kumarasamy, Mr.G.Jayachandran
For the Respondents:Government Advocate for R1 to R4, Mr.C.Jayaprakash

The court emphasized the necessity for administrative authorities to respond timely to representations made under Article 226.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: This case pertains to Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning the issuance of a writ of Mandamus. Facts of the Case: The petitioners challenged the non-rectification of the FMB sketch and sought issuance of a patta based on a previous court decree.

Findings of Court:
The court observed the petitioners had not received a decision on their representation and directed the 2nd respondent to act on the merits of the case.

Issues: The court framed the issue relating to the timely response of the authorities to the petitioners' representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the authority to address the representations made in accordance with the law.

Result: This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek rectification of fmb sketch. (Para 1 , 3)
2. court hears arguments regarding authority's duty. (Para 2 , 4)
3. court directs timely response to representation. (Para 5)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioners, wherein the petitioners have sought for the rectification in the FMB sketch and for a consequential direction to the 4^th respondent to issue patta in favour of the 2^nd petitioner for an extent of 3 Cents.

2. Heard Mr.B. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Jayachandran, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate for 5^th respondent.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the 4^th respondent had issued notice under Section 5 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and the same came to be challenged by the 2^nd petitioner in OS No.694 of 2022 before the District Munsif Court, Salem. The suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Salem in AS No.201/2003 and the same was allowed by judgement and decree dated 01.12.2004. According to the petitioners, the Appellate Court accepted Ex.B5 and decreed the suit and as per the judgement and decree, the petitioners are entitled for the rectification of the mistake in the FMB sketch with respect to SF Nos.10 and 12/1. However, no orders were passed and therefore, WP No.16390 of 2017 was filed before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 30.06.2017 and directed the 2^nd respondent to deal with the representation and pass orders within the time frame. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent did not pass any orders and hence, Cont P No.2183 of 2017 was filed and when the contempt petition came up for hearing on 24.01.2018, it was informed to this Court that already the request made by the petitioners has been rejected on 18.01.2018.

4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed WP No.4466 of 2018. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 04.09.2023 by making an observation that already the suit has reached its finality and hence, the parties will have to take a decision. The petitioners thereafter made several representations and the same did not evoke any response and the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials placed before this Court, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to deal with the representation submitted by the petitioners on 09.05.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document