Disposed

Lakshmi Cargo Company Ltd., v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC3 Dec 2014WP/31614/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to consider representations for mutation of revenue records and patta issuance. Court disposed of petition by directing petitioner to submit copies of older representations to respondents within four weeks, prompting merits consideration within eight weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to send copies of representations dated 2008 and 2009 to respondents within four weeks; respondents to consider on merits within eight weeks if no disputes.

Lakshmi Cargo Company Ltd., Vs The Government of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | 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.31614 of 2014

¶6

Lakshmi Cargo Company Limited, rep.by Mr.R.Murthy, Chennai-8. ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Government of Tamilnadu, rep.by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶9

The Director, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Tax, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore Registration District. ...Respondents

¶11

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act upon the representations of the petitioner dated 25.11.2008 (Finance/6981/2008) to the third respondent, 25.9.2009 (LCC/Uppilipalayam/1003/2009) to the second respondent and 4.5.2012 (LCC/Uppilipalayam/1003/2012) to the first and second respondents and pass necessary orders for mutation of revenue records in respect of the schedule property in keeping with G.O.Ms.No.111 Revenue (ULC) Department dated 3.3.2007 and issue a patta with respect to the schedule property forthwith in the name of the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Anirudh Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their representation for mutation in the revenue records and for the issue of a patta.

¶15

Heard Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶16

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

¶17

One M/s.Heritage Printers Limited was merged with the petitioner company by the orders of this Court in C.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2006 dated 12.4.2006. In effect, the properties in S.Nos.380/1 and 381/1, Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore comprising of 18264 sq.ft., belonged to the said M/s. Heritage Printers Limited vested with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner applied to the third respondent for mutation in the revenue records and for the issue of a patta in the name of the petitioner. Since it did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

It is seen that prior to the purchase, by a Notification dated 6.1.1990, the Government declared the said lands to be excess lands held by the predecessor in title of the petitioner. Since possession was not taken over by the Government prior to repeal of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, taking assistance from the judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner also requested the second respondent seeking to restore the lands. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore addressed to the second respondent on 8.2.2010 requesting to pass suitable orders and to issue a patta, the same has not yet been considered. It is also seen that the petitioner sent a representation dated 4.5.2012 to the respondents 1 and 2. However, nothing was forthcoming.

¶19

The representations were of the year 2008 and 2009. It is not known as to whether the same were available with the respondents 3 and 2.

¶20

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to send copies of the representations dated 25.11.2008 and 25.9.2009 respectively to the respondents 3 and 2, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representations, if there are no disputes, the respondents 2 and 3 shall consider the respective representations of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No costs.

¶21

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-III) Dt:16/12/2014 True Copy

¶22

Sub-Assitant Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶26

The Director, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Tax, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶27

The Tahsildar, Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore Registration District.

¶28

- 1 cc to Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, Advocate SR 58706

¶29

- 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr 59319

¶30

lrs(co) prk19/12

¶31

WP.No.31614 of 2014

¶32

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

Lakshmi Cargo Company Ltd., v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Cargo Company Ltd., v. The Government of Tamilnadu

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

C.Subramaniyan Vs The Tahsildar

Smt.J.Sarasa Vs The State of Tamilnadu