Partly allowed

C.Subramaniyan v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC3 Dec 2014WP/31608/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a direction to correct details in the UDR patta and passbook, the Court, without opining on merits, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders if no title dispute exists within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2014 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks if no title dispute exists.

C.Subramaniyan Vs The Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 03.12.2014

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.31608 of 2014

C.Subramaniyan

...Petitioner

The Tahsildar, Udumalaipet, Tirupur District.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to make correction in the UDR patta based on the representation dated 13.11.2014 filed by the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayakumar,

¶14

Additional Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to consider his representation for making corrections in the UDR patta as well as patta passbook.

¶17

Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶18

The petitioner claims that the property in survey No.31/A2B, Bodipatty is his ancestral property. In the UDR patta, however, his name is mentioned as Maniyan. Further, in the patta passbook, the survey number is indicated as 31/A2C instead of 31/A2B. Seeking to make necessary corrections in the UDR patta as well as the patta passbook, the petitioner sent a representation dated 13.11.2014 to the respondent. Since it did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶19

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 respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.11.2014 on

¶20

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

¶21

merits and if there is no dispute with regard to title, pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Tahsildar, Udumalaipet, Tirupur District.
1 cc to Mr.M.Ravi ,Advocate, SR.No.58612
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No53722
WP.No.31608 of 2014
cnr(co)
pmk.18.12.2014

¶23

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

C.Subramaniyan v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Subramaniyan v. The Tahsildar

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

K.Kuppusamy Vs The District Collector

M/s.Srivatsa Marketing (India) Vs The Commissioner

M.Ranjith Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

The Hindu Munnetra Kalagam Vs The Honourable Chief Secretary

Lakshmi Cargo Company Ltd., Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Smt.J.Sarasa Vs The State of Tamilnadu