Disposed

Yesudoss, v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Jul 2011WP(MD)/4724/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the District Collector and Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation regarding land boundaries and dispose of it on merits within four weeks, making it clear that the Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direct the first respondent to consider the representation and fix land boundaries within four weeks.

Yesudoss, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.07.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD)No.4724 of 2011

¶5

Yesudoss ... Petitioner

¶6

1.The District Collector, Nagercoil at Kanyakumari District. 2.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2011 and dispose of the same directing the surveyor to fix the boundaries of R.S.No.301/15D and 302/8 situated at Pacode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Nandakumar For Respondents ... Mr.R.Anandha Raj, Govt. Advocate

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2011 and dispose of the same directing the surveyor to fix the boundaries of R.S.No.301/15D and 302/8 situated at Pacode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

The petitioner requires the Surveyor to fix the boundaries for the land mentioned above.

¶14

¶15

Without going into the merits of the case and considering the

¶16

nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2011 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities concerned are entitled to decide the matter on its own merit.

¶17

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Deputy Registrar(Accounts)

/TRUE COPY/

Assistant Registrar

To:

1.The District Collector, Nagercoil at Kanyakumari District.

¶24

2.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.R.Nandakumar, Advocate SR.No.21474 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.21683

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.4724 of 2011

04.07.2011

rsb

PA/12.07.2011/2P/5C

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Yesudoss, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yesudoss, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sai Regency Power Corpn. Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

Tamilarasi, Vs the Commissioner

P. Manju Vs the Inspector of Panchayat

M.Parasuraman, Vs the Tahsildar

K. Paramasivan, Vs the Commissioner

Jeyakaranponsingh, Vs the Principal Home Secretary