G VEERABADIRAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER KANCHIPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners G. Veerabadiran and G. Kalidas @ Kaliappan have filed the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the 1 st respondent in respect of Na.Ka. No. 54635 of 2008 dated 20.4.2009 to quash the same and direct the first respondent to treat the petitioner's Application dated 5.10.2007, received on 15.10.2007 from the office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram in the Public Grievances Cell and restore the petitioner's name in respect of R.S. No. 171 which is wrongly sub-divided 171/1 to 7 and also in respect of 150/8 in Vallam Village of Thiruperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

(2.) The petitioners are brothers and both of them are owners of property situated in Vallam (A) Village of Thiruperumbudur Taluk of Kancheepuram District. They have claimed that the landed properties are under their possession and enjoyment from the date of notification issued by the Government notifying Inam A(sic)bolition Act. They have also relied upon 'A' register maintained in the year 1962 wherein it is stated that the petitioners' family was in possession of Survey No. 150/5,150/8 and 171. From the date of settlement of the property by settlement officer vide 'A' Register in the year 1962, till date they have been in possession of the property and further, none of the properties have been alienated. While so, in the year 1983, when there was updating of revenue record scheme carried out by the Government, without notice to the petitioners, Survey No. 171 came to be sub-divided and subsequently, some of the extent of the properties in Survey No. 171 have been alienated and wrong entries have been made in the Revenue Records, (therefore, the petitioners presented a Petition before the Revenue Authorities on 15.10.2007 requesting them to pass orders by carrying out proper entries in the Revenue Records that the petitioners are the owners of the properties shown in Survey No. 150/5, 150/8 and 171. The first respondent took up the Application presented by the petitioners dated 15.10.2007 and passed the impugned order dated 20.4.2009 by which the first respondent had gone into several transactions taken place between various parties with reference to several registered sale deeds registered between various parties and finally glassed the order declining the prayer sought for by the petitioners made in their partition dated 15.10.2007. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2009, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without considering the 'A' register as well as the grounds and averments made by the petitioner in the Petition dated 15.10.2007, the first respondent has passed the order. Therefore, on the above ground he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.4.2009.