1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P.(MD).No.2197 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Selvakumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thanjavur District. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Court Road, Thanjavur District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Office, Thanjavur District. 4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Court Road, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 03.02.2011 made by the petitioner and the villagers and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader O R D E R ********** [Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J] Though this Writ Petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and villagers dated 03.02.2011, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition, for the reason, through the said representation, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to cancel the free house site pattas granted to the private individuals in the year 1999. Seeking the said relief, the petitioner has made the said request in the year 2011, i.e., after lapse of 12 years. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the individuals, to whom free house site pattas were granted, are owning lands and in spite of the above fact, they were granted such benefit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. If it is the grievance of the petitioner, nothing prevented him from approaching any Court of law at an early point of time. In our considered opinion, due to lapse of 12 years, perhaps the individuals might have sold the said sites to other persons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even on 10.10.2002 also, such a representation was made. However, except a copy of the said representation, no proof for sending the same is filed in the typed set of papers. Apart from the above, there is no satisfactory reason given for the delay of 12 years. 4. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all representations need not necessarily be directed to be disposed of. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that this Writ Petition cannot be entertained. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Thanjavur District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Court Road, Thanjavur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Office, Thanjavur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Court Road, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. + 1 cc to Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Advocate, SR No.8135 + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.8324 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.2197 of 2011 25.03.2011 NB RJ/9.6.11 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/