Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in Ni.Mu.D3/26169/2021 dated 15.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to effect sub-division for 12.5 Ares instead of 11.5 Ares in S.No.169/3A situated in Keeramangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District in the name of the Petitioners father Chinnathambi and consequently issue patta for the same within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash Ni.Mu.D3/26169/2021 dated 15.12.2023 and and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to effect sub-division for 12.5 Ares instead of 11.5 Ares in S.No.169/3A situated in Keeramangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District in the name of the petitioner's father Chinnathambi and consequently, to issue patta for the same within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

2.The petitioner is claiming title over the property through the petitioner's father namely Chinnathambi and the said property is an ancestral property. However, the 4th respondent is claiming right over the property through Chinnaiah. When the dispute arose between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent preferred O.S.No.102 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Aranthangi and the said suit was dismissed. There is a finding in the suit that the said Chinnaiah through whom the 4th respondent is claiming title is not having any land in the S.No.169/3A. Based on the said finding, the petitioner is claiming that the error crept in the UDR as 11.5 and it has to be 12.5. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

3.Through the impugned order, it is stated that prior to the rectification, the extent is stated as 11.5. Even subsequent to the UDR rectification, it is only 11.5. Hence, the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim through the impugned order. However, the petitioner is relying on the patta issued to the petitioner and the finding in the suit. Therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the petitioners claim based on the above 2 documents.

4.Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the first respondent who shall consider the petitioner's claim based on the petitioner's patta as well as the judgment and decree of the suit, dated 01.04.2011, in accordance to law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.