Disposed

Smti. Palaniammal v. the Honble Lt. Governor and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Sept 2021WPA/146/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, directed the respondent authority to consider a summary application filed by the petitioner for correcting a survey plot number within ten days and to dispose of it after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent No. 3 to consider the application and dispose of it within ten days after an opportunity of hearing to interested persons.

Smti. Palaniammal Vs the Honble Lt. Governor and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/146/2021

Palaniammal

… Petitioner

Vs.

The Lt. Governor & others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr.VD Sivabalan, Advocate … for the petitioner Mr.Arul Prasanth, Advocate … for the respondents

¶10

September 10, 2021 [GNC]

¶11

Item No.08

¶12

It is really unfortunate that despite the direction passed by this Court on January 11, 2016 in WP No.16 of 2016 to consider the application of the petitioner filed on 24^th June, 2015 and dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of communication of the order in accordance with law, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities.

¶13

The dispute initially pertains to regularization of the land occupied by the petitioner which was ultimately decided in favour of the petitioner but because of the discrepancy in the survey plot number the decision could not be implemented. The petitioner was advised to file an application for correction of the survey plot number which he made as far back as in 2015. No action was taken on the said application which constrained the petitioner to move before this Court with the aforesaid writ petition and despite direction having passed therein the authority

¶14

¶15

appears to have been slept in the slumber and invited further litigation before this Court. The dormant and lackadaisical attitude of the respondent authorities is apparent as they are not discharging the duties and responsibilities entrusted under the Regulation. Though it is a clear case of disobedience of the order passed by this Court yet in order to bring an end to the litigation and to render complete justice this Court is not inclined to pass any stringent order in this regard.

¶16

The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the said application and dispose of the same within ten days from the date of communication of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons including the petitioner in accordance with law. The time limit indicated hereinabove is peremptory and mandatory.

¶17

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed

¶18

of.

¶19

( Harish Tandon, J. )

Smti. Palaniammal v. the Honble Lt. Governor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Palaniammal v. the Honble Lt. Governor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Alagammai Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. Blue Chip Consultancy Service an Another Vs the Chief Engineer and Administrator and Another

Susheel Dixit Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sumitra Devi and Others Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Another

Shri. S. Niju Vs the Secretary, State Transport Authority and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Andaman Plantation and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.