Allowed

Poochi v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2015WP/37860/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus directing revenue authorities to conduct an enquiry on a representation regarding patta issuance and property sub-division. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation and pass orders within four months after issuing notices to all relevant parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation, issue notices to relevant parties, and pass orders on merits within four months.

Poochi Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 1/12/2015

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

and

¶5

MP.NO.1/2015

¶6

Poochi

¶7

Chinna Velliyan 3. Kolantha Gounder @ Kolanthasamy ...Petitioners Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, Salem District.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Salem District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Mettur, Salem District.

¶11

Ponnusamy

¶12

Chellandi

¶13

Sidhan
7. Sidhan ...Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry based on the representation of the petitioner dated 10/6/2015.

¶15

For Petitioner .. Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan

¶16

For respondents .. Mr.R.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶17

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶18

Heard Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel appearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional

¶19

Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶20

This writ petition has been filed praying to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry based on the representation of the petitioner dated 10/6/2015.

¶21

The petitioner's representation concerns sub-division of the property in survey No.541, Palamalai Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and issuance of patta in his name. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner alleges that the names of certain other persons have to be removed from the patta.

¶22

Since the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, without notice to the private respondents 4 to 7, the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner are not gone into.

¶23

In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10/6/2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner, as well as to the respondents 4 to 7 and all other persons, who are likely to have been aggrieved, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. mvs. Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Salem District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, Salem District.

¶25

The Tahsildar, Mettur, Salem District. + 1 CC TO Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, Advocate Sr 65418. KR/18/12

¶26

W.P.No.37860 of 2015

¶27

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

Poochi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poochi 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

REKHA(38) Vs the Special Relief Commissione

M/s. Adarsh Estates Private Vs The Special Tahsildar (L.a.)

A.K.Anbazhagan Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Venkatachalam, Vs the Assistant Engineer

India Airports Kamgar Union Vs The Airports Authority of

M.K.Mallikeswaran, Vs The Registrar of Co-operative