1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.7.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD)No. 7899 of 2011 P.Hariram Raja ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar Dt, Virudhunagar. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. 4. The Tahsildar, Thiruchuzhi, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to issue joint patta to the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the third respondent in letter Na.Ka.A1/4431/10 dated 23.12.2010 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr. M.Gnanagurunathan For R1 to R4 : Mr. R. Anandha Raj Government Advocate ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to issue joint patta to the petitioner and the other siblings of late Paulraj based on the recommendation of the third respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, in letter Na.Ka.A1/4431/10 dated 23.12.2010. 2. Heard Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the patta under UDR scheme was wrongly issued to one Rajasekaran S/o Paulraj in the year 1997 and after an elaborate enquiry, the third respondent filed a report to the second respondent in Na.Ka.A1/4431/10 dated 23.12.2010. He further submitted that even though there was a recommendation on 23.12.2010 to issue a joint patta, it is not issued. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation on 10.2.2011 to the fourth respondent to implement the order of the third respondent. As https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 there is no response, the Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 states that the authority will have to consider the issue after verifying if any appeal has been filed by the said Rajsekaran as against the order passed by the third respondent. 6. In such view of the matter, the fourth respondent is directed to verify as to whether any appeal, revision or any other similar proceedings has been filed against the order of the third respondent dated 23.12.2010 and after verifying the same, the authority shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.2.2011 on his own merits in accordance with law, if there is no restraint, within a reasonable time preferably by eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed off. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar Dt, Virudhunagar. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. 4. The Tahsildar, Thiruchuzhi, Virudhunagar District. +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.23550 W.P.(MD)No. 7899 of 2011 15.7.2011 ses PA/03.08.2011/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/