1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.780 of 2011 A.Singaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin 2.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 04.11.2010 in Mu. Mu(Aa8)/1071/10 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently grant a direction directing the 2nd respondent to carry out sub-division of S.No.152/3 and to issue patta to an extent of 3 acres and 10 cents on the northern side of the total extent of 6 acres and 21 cents (2.51.5 hectors) situated at Vambhar Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District in favour of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader. ORDER The petitioner having failed to convince the Tahsildar, Vilathikulam by refusing to exercise the power under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 has challenged the order dated 04.11.2010. 2.By the impugned order, the second respondent refused to modify the patta as the original patta stands in the joint names and even the documents produced (sale deed) by the petitioner do not provide for any separate patta. Hence, he refused to modify the entries in the patta pass book. 3.As against the said order refusing to exercise his jurisdiction, any person is aggrieved has a right of appeal under Section 12 to the appellate authority of the same Act, failing which a further revision to revisional authority. The petitioner has not explained as to why the two tire remedy provided under the Act has not been exercised by him. 4.In the present case, in the affidavit filed in paragraph 9, it has been averred that he has got no alternative or effective relief, therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the Constitution. Such a statement belies the fact of a remedy provided under the Act both for appeal and further revision. 5.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to state that no notice was given for passing the order, that can be the grounds for appeal. Merely because the orders passed contrary to the Act, the petitioner need not rush to this Court attacking the order of the original authority. 6.In the absence of exercising the right conferred under the Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if the petitioner filed any appeal, the time taken to approach this Court will stand excluded as per the provisions of the Limitation Act. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin 2.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. +1 CC to Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR.No.39760 +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.39639 sms Writ Petition (MD)No.780 of 2011 14.11.2011 TR : 29.11.2011 : 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/