IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.4010 of 2025 Saraswathi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District. 3.Vijayarangan 4.Muthu ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the Impugned order passin in Na.Ka.Ji1/5151/ 2024 dated 06.12.2024 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 03.10.2022 and cancel the TSLR stands in the name of respondents 3 and 4 and subsequently issue the TSLR in the name of petitioner for the subject matter property situate in T.S. No 426 to an extent of 0.33 Cents in 2nd Ward, 10th Block, Tiruvannamalai District. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner : Ms.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 06.12.2024 and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 03.10.2022, wherein, the petitioner is seeking for cancellation of the TSLR which stands in the name of the 3rd and 4th respondents and for issuing the TSLR in the name of the petitioner with respect to the subject property. 2.Heard Ms.R.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 3.The petitioner had earlier moved W.P.No.11794 of 2024 and this writ petition was disposed by an order dated 29.04.2024 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder: 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.176 of 1999 for partition and the suit has been decreed and final decree has also been passed in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has given a representation to the first respondent to cancel the TSLR in the name of the respondents 3 and 4 and as per the communication sent by the first respondent, the second respondent also conducted enquiry, no action has been taken by the first and second respondents in this regard. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for in this writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, there shall be a direction to the first and second respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2022 and pass Orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4.Pursuant to the above order, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2024 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: cj;jut[ jhth g[yj;jpd; chpik Fwpj;J ,UntW jug;gpdh;fSf;fpilna chpik gpur;rid nknyh';fp cs;sjhYk;. jhth g[yj;jpd; chpik 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Fwpj;J khtl;l chpikapay; ePjp kd;wj;jpy; bjhlh;e;Js;s mry; tHf;F vz;/O.S.No.103/2021 kw;Wk; jpUtz;zhkiy Kjd;ik rhh;g[ ePjp kd;wj;jpy; bjhlh;e;Js;s epiwntw;Wk; kD E.P/No.13/2025 Mfpait epYitapYs;sjhy;. tUtha;j;Jiwapd; K:yk; vt;tpj cj;jut[k; gpwg;gpf;f ,ayhJ vd thjpahd jpUkjp/ru!;tjp f/bg KUfd; vd;gtUf;F ,jd;K:yk; bjhptpj;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ 5.The main grievance that was expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order ought to have been passed by the 1st respondent and whereas, the 2nd respondent has passed the order. 6.The order passed by the 2nd respondent was as a result of the earlier directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.11794 of 2024. When the relief was sought for, the petitioner had sought for the relief as against both the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer and the relief was granted as prayed for. Consequently, the Tahsildar has passed the order. 7.Even if the matter is sent back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the concerned authority will take into consideration the pendency of the suit which has 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis been referred to in the impugned proceedings. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in sending back the matter to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer of the revenue records in favour of the 3rd and 4th respondents took place during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the same has to be cancelled and the original position must be restored. It is not necessary to further confuse the issue. In order to strike a balance between both the parties, the TSLR which now stands in the name of the 3rd and 4th respondents shall be kept in abeyance. If ultimately, the petitioner succeeds in the civil proceedings, the TSLR that stands in the name of the 3rd and 4th respondent shall be cancelled and the name of the petitioner shall be added in the TSLR. On the other hand, if the 3rd and 4th respondents succeed in the civil proceedings, the TSLR that stands in their name shall be confirmed and it shall be continued. 8.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. 12.02.2025 Internet : Yes Index : Yes Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssr 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. ssr To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District. W.P.No.4010 of 2025 12.02.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis