Madras High Court
Subramaniya Bharathi vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 December, 2021
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
Subramaniya Bharathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
District Revenue Office,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
4.V.Srinivasha Perumal ... Respondents
(R-4 is impleaded vide Court order dated 19.11.2021 in W.M.P(MD).No.14905
of 2021 in W.P(MD).No.15674 of 2020)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent vide office
proceedings in Lr.No:Na.Ka.D6-5810-2019 dated 11.03.2020 and quash the
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to rectify the names
in the Patta bearing No.220 issued by the second respondent office within a
stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-4 : Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus with respect to an order of the first respondent dated 11.03.2020.
2. Heard Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader who appears on
behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan, learned counsel
for the fourth respondent who had been impleaded.
3. Let me be very careful in the nature of order to be passed, since I
do not want to upset the balance with respect to either title or possession as
claimed by the petitioner or by the fourth respondent. I am not entering into
any discussion with respect to those issues. The simple fact is that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
grandfather of the petitioner was called Nandhasamy Naidu. In the revenue
records, an error had occurred and he has been termed Kandasamy Naidu. A
correction to that extent alone, has to be carried out. This would help not only
the petitioner but also the fourth respondent.
4. The said Nandhasamy Naidu had already sold the properties. In
the sale deed, his name is shown as Nandhasamy Naidu. Subsequent revenue
records however reflect the name as Kandasamy Naidu. There has also been
an issue as to whether they are both the same persons or two different persons.
Only to establish that particular fact, the name Kandasamy Naidu in the
revenue records has to be changed to Nandhasamy Naidu.
5. The issue which further arises is whether there is any authority
or power granted to the first respondent to correct the name. It had been stated
in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent that the Special Commissioner
and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai by Circular in
K1/39142/1999 dated 04.11.1999, had very clearly stated that after the
introduction of the Ryotwary Settlement and after the passing of the Madras
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, the orders of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
settlement authorities have become final and there no powers are vested with
the revenue authorities to review, to revise or to alter the patta issued after
settlement. It had therefore been stated that such correction cannot be carried
out.
6. Let me again reiterate that by correcting the name from
Kandasamy Naidu to Nandhasamy Naidu, the rights of either the petitioner or
the fourth respondent would not be affected, but rather regularized. In this
regard, there is also a Full Bench Judgment in W.A.No.326 of 2007, in which it
had held that the Director of Survey and Settlement can exercise suo motu
powers to correct any error made by the settlement party at the time of
settlement.
7. I am going into the narrow confines of that particular authority
granted by the Full Bench Court retaining the suo motu powers to the Director
of Survey and Settlement. I am deeply conscious that such suo motu power has
to be exercised with great care and with discretion and within the scope of
corners of authority vested with the Director of Survey and Settlement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
8. In this case, it is only a correction of a name bringing it back to
the correct name from Kandasamy Naidu to Nandhasamy Naidu. No further
corrections are permitted under this order. The rights of the parties and their
respective claims are not examined and they remain as stated by the parties
themselves. The revenue records under which they both claim, will now reflect
the correct name of the individual namely Nandhasamy Naidu and not
Kandasamy Naidu.
9. With the said observations, though the Writ Petition had been
filed for Certiorari, a Mandamus is directed with the limited relief and direction
to correct the name in the revenue records from Kandasamy Naidu to
Nandhasamy Naidu.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
07.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm/Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
District Revenue Office,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Lm/Nsr
W.P(MD)No.15674 of 2020
07.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
