Disposed

R. Gunasekaran v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Apr 2014WP(MD)/4790/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Tahsildar (second respondent) to consider the petitioner's representation to survey specific land within six weeks, disposing of the petition without dealing with other averments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the survey of the land within six weeks.

R. Gunasekaran Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4790 of 2014

¶7

R.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to survey the land in Survey No.374/2B, 374/3B in Patta No.1927 and land measure above 18-1/2 cents, situated at Vilampatti, Vadukaptti Panchayat Union, Usilampatti, Madurai District based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2014 within a stipulated time.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Anbarasu For Respondents : Mr.Raja Rajan Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to survey the land in Survey No.374/2B, 374/3B in Patta No.1927 and land measure above 18-1/2 cents, situated at Vilampatti, Vadukaptti Panchayat Union, Usilampatti, Madurai District based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2014 within a stipulated time.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶16

Though a larger relief has been sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition, at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a direction is given to the second respondent to consider his representation, which was given to survey the land measuring to an extentof about 18 1/2 cents in Survey No.374/2B, 374/3B in Patta No.1927, situated at Vilampatti, Vadukaptti Panchayat Union, Usilampatti, Madurai District, that would suffice.

¶17

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to deal with other averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition. Further, a direction is hereby given to the second respondent to consider the representation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petitioner, after issuing notice to all necessary parties and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

¶19

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.side)

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.

¶24

The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai.

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.4790 of 2014

22.04.2014

ssl

PBK 13/05/2014 2P/3C

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

R. Gunasekaran v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Gunasekaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Noor Mohamed Vs the Principal Chief

Vinothkumar Vs the Tahsildar

A.Mytheen Mathar, Vs the District Collector

M/S. the Parvatha Corporation Vs the Commissioner

Rose Mary Educational Society, Vs the Member Secretary

Munavara, Vs the District Registrar