(Prayer: Directing the 3rd respondent herein to remove the names of the 4th to 6th respondents from the Town Survey Land Register since the same is illegal and issue a fresh patta in favour of the petitioner for an extent of 76 cents in S.No.924/3D1 as per the registered sale deed dated 16.11.1988 and also issue fresh patta in favour of the petitioner for an extent of 6 Cents in 924/3D2 as per the Registered sale deed dated 23.12.1989 situated at Madhavaram Village, Thiruvallur District by considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 28.01.2016. AMENDED AS WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, Calling for the records of the Impugned Town Survey Land Register dated 28.10.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue a fresh patta in favour of the petitioner for an extent of 76 cents in S.No.924/3D1 as per the registered sale deed dated 16.11.1988 and also issue fresh patta in favour of the petitioner for an extent of 6 Cents in 924/3D2 as per the Registered sale deed dated 23.12.1989 situated at Madhavaram Village, Thiruvallur District by considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 20.03.2025.( PRAYER AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.04.2025 IN WMP.13624/2025 IN WP.9433/2025 BY NAVJ))

1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned TSLR dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent, disclosing the name of the respondents 4 and 5 in respect of 11 cents of land in Survey No.924/3D1, Madhavaram Village, Tiruvallur District (Now Chennai).

2. The petitioner claims that she has purchased 76 cents in Survey No.924/3D1 under a sale deed dated 16.11.1988. The petitioner also claims that she has purchased another extent of 6 cents of land in Survey No.924/3D2 under a sale deed dated 23.12.1989. The petitioner claims that she has also filed a Civil Suit before the competent Civil Court, seeking for declaration and for recovery of possession in respect of the 76 cents of land in Survey No.924/3D1, which she claims that she has purchased the same under a sale deed dated 16.11.1988.

3. The petitioner also claims that before the competent Civil Court, she had also obtained permanent injunction to restrain the defendants in the said suit from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 76 cents in Survey No.924/3D1. The petitioner, therefore, claims that she is the absolute owner of the 76 cents in Survey No.924/3D1 and 6 cents of land in Survey No.924/3D2. However, the same has been disputed by the private respondents viz., respondents 4 to 6 through their counter. They claim that they are the absolute owners of 7 cents of land in Survey No.924/3D1 out of the 76 cents of land claimed by the petitioner in the very same Survey No.924/3D1. They rely upon a settlement deed executed by the sixth respondent in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. Based on the representation made by the respondents 4 and 5, TSLR was modified under the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent by disclosing that the respondents 4 and 5 are in possession of an extent of 11 cents in Survey No.924/3D1. It is also admitted by the private respondents that in so far as the 65 cents of land out the 76 cents of land in Survey No.924/3D1, the private respondents have no claim whatsoever.

4. The petitioner has also filed a sale deed dated 16.11.1988 standing in her name, though the said sale deed covers an extent of 76 cents, but whereas, the undisputed extent of land is 59 cents according to the private respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no necessity for the petitioner to wait for the out come of the final adjudication in the Civil Suit for the undisputed extent of land in Survey No.924/3D1 i.e., 59 cents of land approximately. The said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for modification of the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent, so that, the undisputed extent of land i.e., 59 cents of land approximately in Survey No.924/3D1 and 6 cents of land in Survey No.924/3D2 can be disclosed in the modified TSLR instead of the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent.

7. Since the private respondents viz., respondents 4 to 6 have not raised any objection for modifying the TSLR by disclosing that the petitioner is the owner of 71 cents of land (65 cents of land and 6 cents of land), this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the matter is remanded back to the very same respondent for fresh consideration for the purpose of modifying the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent based on the submissions made by the respective counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 before this Court today, which has also been recorded by this Court.

8. In so far as the remaining extent of land, which is disclosed in the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent is concerned, the parties will have to await the outcome of the civil suit pending before the IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri in O.S. No.52 of 2020.

9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents has also not raised any serious objection if the aforesaid direction is issued by this Court.

10. Counter is also yet to be filed by the official respondents. This Court is also of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to any of the respondents if the aforesaid direction as indicated earlier is passed by this Court.

11. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective representations.

12. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned TSLR dated 28.10.2024 issued by the third respondent and remanding the matter back to the third respondent for the purpose of modifying the impugned TSLR dated 28.10.2024 in line with the submissions made by the respective counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 before this Court as recorded in this order. The third respondent shall pass final orders, modifying the impugned TSLR dated 28.10.2024 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioner and the private respondents and also after giving due consideration to the supporting documents filed by them. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.