Dismissed

R.K. Uma, v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Feb 2013WP(MD)/13430/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged changes in tax registers allegedly orchestrated by fourth respondent via fake sale deed. Court dismissed petition on merits but directed third respondent to examine petitioner's representations before April 2013 under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner advised to make representation; third respondent directed to look into representations by April 2013.

R.K. Uma, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 08.02.2013

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

WP(MD) No.13430 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶7

R.K.Uma ..Petitioner/Petitioner - Vs -

¶8

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶9

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayath Collectorate Tirunelveli District.

¶10

3.The Executive Officer, Udankudi Selection Grate Town Panchayat, Tiruchenthur Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶11

4.Raguram ..Respondents/Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly the Executive Officer, Udankudi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Tiruchenthur Taluk, Tuticorin District, 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 14.11.2011 and subsequent telegram dated 18.11.2011 of the petitioner before effecting any change in the house tax register and water tax register pertaining to Door Nos.9/8, 3/2B & (3/1)/2C which are situate in Natham Survey Nos.317/1A, Udankudi Village, Thiruchenthur Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar

¶14

For RR - 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Ananthraj Govt.Advocate For R - 3 : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Govt.Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the third respondent to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 14.11.2011 and 18.11.2011.

¶17

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the owner of the property which situates in Survey No.317/1A, Udankudi Village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Tuticorin District. The fourth respondent is an influential person and he made arrangements to change tax, in his name by way of producing a fake sale deed alleged to have been executed by a fictitious person. Under the said circumstances, the representations have been given by the petitioner to the third respondent. The third respondent has not at all considered the same.

¶18

Considering the nature of relief sought for in the present petition and also nature of grievance expressed on the side of the petitioner, this Court is of the view to direct the third respondent to look into the representation made on the side of the petitioner. With the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above observation, this present Writ Petition is liable to be disposed of.

¶19

¶20

In fine, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the basis of the observation made earlier. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed and the third respondent is strictly directed to look into the representations given by the petitioner before the end of April 2013.

sd/-

Deputy Registrar

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶27

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayath Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

3.The Executive Officer, Udankudi Selection Grate Town Panchayat, Tiruchenthur Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶29

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader in SR.6331 +1cc to Mr.S.Sivathilakar, Advocate in SR.5903

¶30

WP(MD) No.13430 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 08.02.2013

¶31

¶32

pbk 21/02/2013 ::2p-6c:

¶33

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

R.K. Uma, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K. Uma, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Governement

Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

D.G.A. Kennedy, Vs the Director

M. Thangaraj, Vs Inspector General of

Smalin Jenitha Vs Union of India

N. Alphonse Fernando, Vs the Commissioner