MR.Chandrappa Vs The District collector

MR.Chandrappa vs The District collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 20, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444826

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1444826
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G. R. Swaminathan
Decided On: May 20, 2026
Case Number: WP/18693/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MR.Chandrappa

Respondent

The District collector

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 20.05.2026coramthe hon'ble mr.justice g.r.swaminathan chandrappa : petitionerversuskrishnagiri district, krishnagiri. : respondentsprayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 13.10.2025 and rectify the erroneous udr entry in the name of dharmoji rao and the property may be restored and registered in their names as legal heirs of late madheva @ mahadevan in the udr. for petitioner : mr.m.p.saravanan for respondents : mr.m.murali, government advocateorderheard both sides.2. according to the petitioner, the petition mentioned land stood in thename of one mahadeva @ mahadevan. however, during the updating data registry (udr), name of one dharmoji rao was wrongly incorporated. the petitioner wants the same to be corrected. the petitioner claims to be the legal heir of the said mahadeva @ mahadevan.3. it is well settled that an udr error can be corrected only by thejurisdictional district revenue officer. it is also well settled that there is no limitation for filing a revision petition before the district revenue officer seeking such correction. the petitioner has moved the district revenue officer by submitting a representation on 13.10.2025; however, no action has been taken so far on the said representation. hence, the present writ petition.4. the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 13.10.2025, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the second respondent shall put all the interested persons on notice before passing an order.5. it is made clear that i have not gone into the merits of the case.6. the writ petition stands disposed of. there will be no order as to costs. index : yes/no neutral citation : yes/no tar tog.r.swaminathan, j.(tar)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.05.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Chandrappa : Petitioner
versus
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. : Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 13.10.2025 and rectify the erroneous UDR entry in the name of Dharmoji Rao and the property may be restored and registered in their names as legal heirs of Late Madheva @ Mahadevan in the UDR. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali, Government Advocate

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. According to the petitioner, the petition mentioned land stood in the

name of one Mahadeva @ Mahadevan. However, during the Updating Data Registry (UDR), name of one Dharmoji Rao was wrongly incorporated. The petitioner wants the same to be corrected. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of the said Mahadeva @ Mahadevan.

3. It is well settled that an UDR error can be corrected only by the

jurisdictional District Revenue Officer. It is also well settled that there is no limitation for filing a revision petition before the District Revenue Officer seeking such correction. The petitioner has moved the District Revenue Officer by submitting a representation on 13.10.2025; however, no action has been taken so far on the said representation. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 13.10.2025, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall put all the interested persons on notice before passing an order.

5. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar To

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

(tar)

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties MR.Chandrappa vs The District collector Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G. R. Swaminathan