1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)No.7998 of 2011 Dr.Ramadhas .. Petitioner Vs. The Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent made in Na.Ka.A4/3239/11 dated 03.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for name transfer of patta. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondent : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader O R D E R This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent made in Na.Ka.A4/3239/11 dated 03.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for name transfer of patta. 2. Heard Mr.R.Murali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the first respondent. 3. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 4. The petitioner is the purchaser of the property and has approached the Tahsildar for change of patta by mutation of the revenue records and for issuance of patta in respect of Survey No.760/10 in Kottaram Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk. The claim was rejected stating that the general power of attorney does not specify the schedule of the property. 5. The respondent, on notice, states that there are some discrepancies in the name of the vendor in the revenue records. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to call upon the vendor to be present before the authority to clarify his status and in the enquiry if any before the Tahsildar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7. In any event, the respondent has accepted in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, that there is no requirement to specify the schedule of the property in the general power of attorney. 8. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to produce the vendor before the Tahsildar along with all relevant records and thereafter the Tahsildar is directed to decide the matter on its own merits and accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' case and the authority shall consider the same on its own merits. 9. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. ssl Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. +1 cc to Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Advocate SR.No.31359. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.31441. W.P(MD)No.7998 of 2011 Dated:13.09.2011 2P/4C RPB 19.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/