1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.01.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P(MD)No.29 of 2011 K.Mohamed Tajudeen .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai & District. 2.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to mutate the petitioner's name in the revenue records regarding 3 acres 25 cents in Survey No.45 of Inam Karampakadu Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District as per the decree and judgment rendered in A.S.No.54 of 2008 dated 15.04.2009, Sub Court, Pudukkottai. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.N.A.Nandagopan Govt.Advocate ORDER The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to carry out mutation in revenue records pertaining to the property in Survey No.45 of Inam Karampakadu Village, Alangudi Taluk in the District of Pudukkottai. 2.According to the petitioner, the property in S.No.45 originally belonged to his father as per registered sale deed dated 18.12.1946 Subsequently, he was given a patta of the property in respect of 5 acres and 6 cents. However, he continue to possess the entire extent of 8 acres and 31 cents without any kind of disturbance. 3.The revenue officials made an attempt to interfere with their possession. This made the petitioner to file a Suit in O.S.No.208 of 2005 before the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi for declaration and injunction. The Suit was dismissed as per judgment and decree dated 04.12.2007. However, the appeal preferred against the said decree was allowed as per judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009 in A.S.No.54 of 2008 The said decree has become final. Based on the said decree, the petitioner made a representation before the second respondent to mutate the revenue records pertaining to 3 acres 25 cents in Survey No.45 of Inam Karampakadu Village, Alangudi Taluk in the District of Pudukkottai.. Since no follow up action was taken by the second respondent, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The issue as to whether mutation has to be effected in respect of the property in Survey No.45 of Inam Karampakadu Village, Alangudi Taluk in the District of Pudukkottai, is a matter to be decided by the second respondent. 6.Since the representation was submitted as early as on 15.11.2010 the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to submit a fresh application. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh application before the second respondent and in the event of making any such application within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be shall considered and disposed of by the second respondent purely on merits and as per law. It is made clear that I have not considered the merits of the matter and it is up to the second respondent to decide the matter purely on merits and as per law and this order shall not be considered as a direction to effect mutation in favour of the petitioner. 8.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai & District. 2.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. +1cc to Mr.N.Balakrishnan, Advocate SR.No.2836 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.2877 W.P(MD)No.29 of 2011 24.01.2011 MPK PA/14.02.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/