1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)No.7384 of 2011 Mrs.Saraswathi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruneleli District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 5.M.Sundar .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider her representation dated 22.06.2011 to cancel the patta that was issued by the third respondent to the fifth respondent, without any notice to the petitioner and consequently to grant patta to the petitioner, within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 to R4 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam Additional Govt. Pleader For R5 : Notice is dispensed with O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider her representation, dated 22.06.2011 to cancel the patta that was issued by the Tahsildar to the fifth respondent, without any notice to the petitioner and to grant patta to the petitioner, within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.R.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for R1 to R4. 3. In view of the nature of the order that is to be passed, notice is dispensed with for R5. 4. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent aggrieved by the proceedings of the Tahsildar granting certain relief to the fifth respondent. 6. Though the Writ Petition has been filed for the larger relief (i.e) to grant patta to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner now pleads that the grievance of the petitioner will be met, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider her representation dated, 22.06.2011 on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner restricting the prayer to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.06.2011, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merits and as per law. If the right of fifth respondent or a third party will be affected by action proposed, it is necessary that such person should be duly noticed to avoid allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. The second respondent shall dispose of the representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been disposed of earlier. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. 8. With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruneleli District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. +1. CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No. 21792 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.21855 pm W.P.(MD)No.7384 of 2011 05.07.2011 TR : 15.07.2011 : 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/