Madras High Court Disposes of Petition Seeking Mandamus to Correct UDR Entries and Issue Patta. Direction issued to revenue authority to consider application on merits after hearing affected parties within twelve weeks under Article 226 of the Constitution.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Madurai
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, R. Karthik, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, to issue patta in his name for certain survey numbers in Kongampatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, and to correct the UDR entries. The case of the petitioner was that patta for the subject lands originally stood in the name of his grandfather, but during the UDR survey, the name of his grandfather was removed and the patta was mutated in the name of one Pandiyammal. Upon discovering this error, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25.01.2025 to the first respondent seeking rectification. The court, considering the limited nature of the relief sought, held that it would suffice to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application on merits and in accordance with law. The court further directed that the first respondent shall hear both the petitioner and Pandiyammal before passing such orders. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Revenue Law - Correction of Revenue Records - Writ of Mandamus - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought correction of UDR entries where patta was mutated in the name of one Pandiyammal, while it originally stood in the name of his grandfather - Court directed the first respondent to consider the application on merits, after hearing the petitioner and Pandiyammal, within a period of twelve weeks - Held that a direction for consideration suffices for the limited relief sought (Paras 3-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the District Revenue Officer should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 25.01.2025 for correction of UDR entries and issuance of patta.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 25.01.2025 on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and Pandiyammal, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India
  • correction of revenue records
  • consideration of application on merits after hearing affected parties
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 301

W.P.(MD)No.7351 of 2025

2025-03-18

P.B.BALAJI

Mr.S.Atham Ali for petitioner; Mrs.K.Malathi, Additional Government Pleader for respondents

R.Karthik

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai; 2.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus for correction of revenue records and issuance of patta.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a direction to the first respondent to issue patta in his name for specified survey numbers and to correct UDR entries based on his application dated 25.01.2025.

Filing Reason

Allegation that during UDR survey, patta standing in the name of petitioner's grandfather was erroneously mutated in the name of one Pandiyammal.

Issues

Whether the revenue authority should be directed to consider the petitioner's application for correction of patta and UDR entries.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner contended that patta originally stood in the name of his grandfather and was wrongly mutated in the name of Pandiyammal during UDR survey.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a writ petition seeks a limited relief of consideration of an application, it is sufficient to direct the authority to consider and dispose of the application on merits after hearing necessary parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 25.01.2025 for correction of the UDR entries. Considering the limited relief sought for by the writ petitioner, it would suffice to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the person in whose name patta has been mutated presently ie., Pandiyammal. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Disposes of Petition Seeking Mandamus to Correct UDR Entries and Issue Patta. Direction issued to revenue authority to consider application on merits after hearing affected parties within twelve weeks under Article 226 of the Consti...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Arbitration Time Extension Dispute — Holds Application Under Section 29A(5) Can Be Filed After Expiry of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate. The court resolved the conflict among High Courts by interpreting Section 29A(4) a...