By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. Mr.S. Pattabiraman, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. The petitioner would aver that the lands measuring to an extent of 9.93 acres comprised in S.No. 412/3 and 9.31 acres in S.No. 412/4, totalling to an extent of 19.24 acres situated at Sanamau Village, Soolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, originally belonged to the petitioner's grandfather, namely, Pethakariyan, who had purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed registered as Document No. 2766 of 1939 dated 09.11.1939 on the file of Sub Registrar, Hosur and eversince the date of purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and was also remitting the statutory levies and during his lifetime, the petitioner's grandfather had executed a registered settlement deed dated 12.01.1971 bearing Document No. 90 of 1971 in favour of the petitioner's mother settling the lands measuring to an extent of 6.70 acres out of 9.31 acres comprised in S.No. 412/4 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. During her lifetime, the mother of the petitioner had sold 4.10 acres out of 6.70 acres in S.No. 412/4 to third parties and was retaining the balance extent of land admeasuring to an extent of 2.61 acres in S.No. 412/4. According to the petitioner, in respect of the said lands, no encumbrance has been created so far. The petitioner would aver that when he had approached the 3rd respondent for computerised patta in respect of the said lands, he came to know that the lands measuring to an extent of 2.61 acres in Survey no. 412/4 and the lands measuring to an extent of 9.93 acres comprised in Survey No. 412/3 of Sanamau Village, Soolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, have been subdivided by the Revenue Department and wrongly entered in the name of respondents 4 and 5 under Updating Registry Scheme (UDR) and the concerned persons have not been put on notice. The petitioner in this regard has submitted a representation dated 26.12.2016 to the respondents rsepondent for carrying out rectification/correction of the errors that had crept in the revenue records during the Updating Registry Scheme and since it is yet to be disposed of, came forward to file the present writ petition.
3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S. Pattabiraman, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
M. SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
nv
4. Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, directs the 1st respondent to entertain the appeal petition/representation dated 26.12.2016, if the papers are otherwise in order and after putting respondents 4 to 6 on notice, shall consider and pass orders on the said appeal/representation, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner as well as to respondents 4 to 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.