1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.13669 of 2011 C.Azhagu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the pattas, issued to affluent persons and to issue patta for the Palayoor village, Karaikudi Taluk, Adi Dravida Public, in the interest of justice. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.Govt.Pleader. ORDER [Order of the Court was made K.N.BASHA, J] The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to cancel the pattas, issued to affluent persons and to issue patta for the Adi Dravida Public in Palayoor village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pattas have been issued only to affluent people, ignoring the downtrodden persons and as such, the petitioner has already preferred a representation, dated 09.02.2009, and inspite of the same, no action was taken and as such the petitioner was constrained to approach this court with the present petition with the aforesaid prayer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Heard Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 6.Though the petitioner has come forward with a larger prayer, it is seen that the petitioner has already preferred a representation, dated 09.02.2009, to the respondents. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the representation preferred by the petitioner and expressing any view on such representation, we are constrained to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 09.02.2009, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to other relevant and necessary parties, and dispose of the said representation, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall furnish a fresh copy of the representation, dated 09.02.2009, to the respondents, along with a copy of this order, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. . Sd/- Assistant Registrar(TT&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. +One Cc to M/s.T.Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.42102 gb rl/4 c- 10.12.2011 Order in W.P.(MD)No.13669/2011 Dated:30.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/