Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Solomon Sahayaraj, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents (District Collector, District Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Tahsildar) to rectify an error in the FMB Sketch concerning Survey Nos. 161/2, 158/1C, and 158/2 situated in Sembatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. The petitioner had purchased properties in these survey numbers through registered sale deeds dated 29.08.2024 and 18.09.2024, and pattas were transferred in his name. Subsequently, he discovered that the FMB Sketch erroneously showed a pathway crossing through his property, whereas the settlement register indicated the entire property was patta land. He alleged that during UDR proceedings, his lands were mistakenly marked as a pathway. The petitioner sent a representation dated 10.01.2024 to the first and second respondents seeking rectification, but no action was taken. The court, at the admission stage, with consent of both parties, disposed of the petition. The court noted that the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, was the appropriate authority to consider the representation. The court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2024 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any necessary parties. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim and that the third respondent was to pass orders independently.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Consideration of Representation - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Petitioner sought direction to respondents to rectify error in FMB sketch showing pathway through his patta lands - Court directed the third respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2024 and pass orders within eight weeks, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and necessary parties - Held that a writ of mandamus lies to compel performance of a statutory or public duty, and here the authority was required to consider the representation (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation seeking rectification of an alleged error in the FMB sketch showing a pathway through his patta lands.
Final Decision
The court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2024 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any necessary parties. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Rectification of revenue records
- Error in FMB sketch
- Consideration of representation
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
