Disposed

K.Kuppusamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Dec 2014WP/31439/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition for issuance of a writ of Mandamus. It directed the petitioner to forward his representation to the second respondent for a reply on merits within four weeks, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to send representation to second respondent; second respondent to consider merits within four weeks.

K.Kuppusamy Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.12.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.31439 OF 2014 AND MP.NO.1 OF 2014

¶6

K.Kuppusamy ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 2.The Tahsildar, Salamedu, Villupuram District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer Salamedu, Villupuram District. ...Respondents

¶8

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner based on the representation dated 8.8.2014.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For Respondents : Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, AGP

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation for the issue of patta.

¶12

Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶13

The petitioner claims that his ancestors were in occupation of a Government poramboke land in S.No.227/1 comprising of 0.31 cents, for more than 100 years. The petitioner also claims that he is in occupation of the said land and has put up a construction, obtained electricity connection and ration card and is also paying B- memo charges regularly. Seeking patta for the said land, the petitioner sent a representation dated 8.8.2014 to the respondents. Since it did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the limited nature of the prayer sought and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated 8.8.2014 to the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the second respondent shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 2.The Tahsildar, Salamedu, Villupuram District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, Salamedu, Villupuram District. + 1 cc to Mr.N. Suresh, Advocate SR.58657 WP.No.31439 of 2014 and MP.No.1 of 2014 GGK(CO) Eu 21.1.15

¶17

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

K.Kuppusamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kuppusamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Manickam, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Irudaya Rani Vs the Area Officer

G.Arunprasad, Vs the Secretary

M.Aamira Fathima, Vs The Annamalai University

T.Elangovan Vs The Director

K.Rajaram Vs The Collector