Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V. Pushpavalli, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents, particularly the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, to include her name in the computer chitta and patta for certain ancestral properties located in Balarajapuram Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District. The properties, comprising survey numbers 123/2, 124/5, 122/1, 135/1, 118/3A, 123/1, 105/2A, 118/3C, 125/2, 119/10, and 106/5A, were claimed to be the ancestral properties of the petitioner's father, who died intestate without executing any document. Consequently, the properties devolved upon the petitioner, her mother, and her brother. The petitioner's brother and mother had already obtained patta for the properties, but the petitioner's name was not included. The petitioner submitted a representation on 2.1.2023 to the respondents requesting inclusion of her name along with her mother and brother. In response, the fourth respondent issued a notice of enquiry on 6.1.2023 fixing the date as 12.1.2023, but no further action was taken. The petitioner submitted another representation on 22.11.2024, which also remained unacted upon. Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner approached the High Court. The court, after hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader who took notice for the respondents, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. The court directed the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all necessary parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim and that the Tahsildar was to decide the matter independently.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Direction to Consider Representation - Petitioner sought inclusion of her name in patta for ancestral properties inherited from her father who died intestate - Respondents failed to act on her representation - Court directed the fourth respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within eight weeks - Held that a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel performance of a statutory duty (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents can be directed to consider the petitioner's representation for inclusion of her name in the computer chitta and patta in respect of ancestral properties.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all necessary parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Article 226
- Representation
- Patta
- Ancestral Property
- Intestate Succession
