Dismissed

Smt.J.Sarasa v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC3 Dec 2014WP/31628/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the inaaction of the Tahsildar regarding a 2011 revenue order rectifying land records. The Court dispensed with merits to direct the respondent to consider the representation on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 4.8.2014 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Smt.J.Sarasa Vs The State 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.31628 of 2014

¶6

1.Smt.J.Sarasa 2.Mr.P.Palanisamy 3.Mr.K.Narayanan 4.Mr.J.Mohan ...Petitioners Vs

¶7

The State of Tamilnadu, rep.by its
Secretary, Revenue Department,
Chennai.
2. The Tahsildar, Korattur Village
Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
3. The Town Survey Officer, Ambattur
Municipality, Ambattur, Chennai.

¶8

The Village Administrative Officer Rukmani Street, Korattur, Chennai-80. ...Respondents

¶9

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 4.8.2014 and consequentially directing the second respondent to give effect to and fully implement the order passed by the District Revenue Officer vide order dated 18.5.2011 passed in proceedings bearing Ref.No.ROC.B3.7000/2011 with respect to lands in extent of 92 cents comprised in S.No.848, TS.No.43/2 of Korattur Village in Ambattur Taluk of Tiruvallur District.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Silambu Selvan

¶11

For Respondents : Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, AGP

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider their representation for implementing the order of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur.

¶14

Heard Mr.S.Silambu Selvan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioners claim to be the absolute and joint owners of the lands in S.No.848 of Korattur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District measuring 12 cents out of 92 cents. While reclassifying the lands, the Revenue Authorities updated the registry wrongly as Kuyavan Kulam, without resettlement. Therefore, claiming resettlement, the petitioners approached the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur, who, in turn, passed an order on 18.5.2011 in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, for making necessary entries in the revenue records, the petitioners sent a representation dated 4.8.2014 to the second respondent. Since it did not evoke any response, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶17

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 second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 4.8.2014 on merits and if there are no disputes, 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.

¶18

rs
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar( )
Dt:15/12/2014
True Copy
Sub-Assitant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department,
Chennai.
2.The Tahsildar, Korattur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur
District.
3.The Town Survey Officer, Ambattur Municipality, Ambattur, Chennai.
4.The Village Administrative Officer, Rukmani Street, Korattur,
Chennai-80.
+ 1 cc to M/s.S.Silambu Selvan Advocate SR 58541
nm(co)
prk17/12

¶19

WP.No.31628 of 2014

¶20

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

Smt.J.Sarasa v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.J.Sarasa v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

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

Lakshmi Cargo Company Ltd., Vs The Government of Tamilnadu