A.MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to survey and fix boundaries and make appropriate subdivision of the property of the petitioner and the fourth respondent based on their respective sale deeds in Survey No.382/3 Ayan Pappakudi Village, Madurai District as per the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and consequently to make necessary mutations in the revenue records pertaining to the property of the petitioner within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the property in S.No.382/3 in Ayan Pappakudi Village in Madurai District, to an extent of 11 cents, in northern portion and 1 acre in western portion out of 2 acres and 2 cents originally belonged to one R.Nagarajan s/o Kuppa N.Ramadoss. The said Nagarajan executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of one Ayyanar, the husband of the petitioner on 13/10/2020. Thereafter, the power of attorney executed a sale deed on 24/8/2021, in favour of his minor sons namely Arul Sri and Tamil Selvan under the guardianship of the petitioner. The petitioner and her children were in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, on 5/1/2023, the fourth respondent trespassed into the property and tried to put up a construction. On the complaint of the petitioner's husband, both parties were directed to survey their respective properties and settle the disputes.

(3.) The petitioner further states that total extent in S.No.382/3 is 2 acres and 2 cents, out of which, eastern side 1 acre and 2 cents in Re.S.No.382/9A1A was purchased by one Vellammal and the said portion was finally purchased by the fourth respondent vide a registered sale deed dtd. 11/10/2019. The petitioner entered into a power of attorney with one R.Nagarajan for 11 cents on the western side 1 acre in Re.S.No.382/9A1A1. On verification of the revenue records, the petitioner came to understand that on the application of the fourth respondent, subdivision was made and Survey No.382/15 was subdivided and patta was issued in the name of the fourth respondent. At the time of surveying the property of the fourth respondent, no notice was served on the petitioner. In that subdivision, the petitioner's western side property was mistakenly included. The FMB sketch for Survey No.382/15 would clearly show that subdivision was wrongly made in Survey No.382/9A1A1 instead of S.No.382/9A1A. According to the petitioner, subdivision for S.No.382/15 ought to have been made in Survey No.382/9A1A not in Survey No.382/9A1A1. To rectify the aforesaid mistake, the petitioner filed the application along with necessary fee on 7/1/2023, with relevant documents for subdivision and for issuance of patta for her land. Since no action was taken on her application, the petitioner filed the above Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.