Disposed

S.Thangavel Nadar v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC8 Dec 2015WP/13208/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court order in a writ petition for issuance of patta. The Court held that title determination is for the respondent but directed the Tahsildar to act on the legal notice after a statutory delay, mandating fresh representation and an ordered of includes a timeline for decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent to consider the legal notice afresh and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks after the Petitioner submits fresh representation.

S.Thangavel Nadar Vs the Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.13208 of 2013

¶6

S.Thangavel Nadar ... Petitioner Vs. The Tahsildar, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai-600 028. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue patta for the remaining 1/3^rd share comprised under S.No.1280/1, 2 and 3, Block No.26, Triplicane Village, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District to the petitioner.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Raman For Respondent : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R

¶9

Claiming right over the 1/3^rd share comprised under S.No.1280/1, 2 and 3, Block No.26, Triplicane Village, MylaporeTriplicane Taluk, Chennai District, the petitioner made a request for issuance of patta through legal notice dated 14.02.2013. For non consideration of the said request, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶10

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

3.Though the petitioner has made reliance upon number of proceedings, this Court is not willing to go into them. The question remains is that whether the petitioner is entitled for the title or not. It is a matter to be considered by the respondent. Thus, suffice it for this Court to direct the respondent to look into the legal notice issued by the petitioner dated 14.02.2013 and take appropriate action as per

¶12

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

¶13

law. Taking into consideration the pendency of the legal notice for more than 2 ½ years, the petitioner is also directed to give representation afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter, after due notice to the petitioner and third parties who have any interest over the said property.

¶14

4.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶15

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
DP
To
The Tahsildar,
Mylapore Triplicane Taluk,
Chennai-600 028.
+1 cc to M/s.A.Raman Advocate sr.65761
+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr.65971
W.P.No.13208 of 2013
aa16/12/2015

¶16

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

S.Thangavel Nadar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thangavel Nadar v. the Tahsildar

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

B.S.Venkatesan Vs The Branch Manager

D.Pazhamalai, Vs The Chairman / Special Deputy

R.Devi Vs The District Collector

K.Ganesan Vs the District Revenue Officer

M/s. Team Sustain, Vs National Institute of Wind

G.Ramkumar Vs The District Collector