Dismissed

Rajadevi v. 1.THE Govt., of Tn Rep.by Secy

Madras HC16 Dec 2015WP/42395/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed batch writ petitions challenging the allocation of house site pattas. Holding that substantial period elapsed, subsequent lists were approved, and the allottees under those lists were not before the Court, relief was denied to the petitioners who relied on an earlier list.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; writ of mandamus not issued; no costs awarded to petitioners.

Rajadevi Vs 1.THE Govt., of Tn Rep.by Secy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2015

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.Nos.42395 to 42400 of 2002

¶6

Rajadevi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42395/02 Jayalakshmi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42396/02 Janaki ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42397/02 Maniammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42398/02 Jaya ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42399/02 Velathal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42400/02

¶7

vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep by. The Secretary to the Govt. Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶8

The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Tiruppur, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents in all Wps

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to assign, allot and issue House site Patta to the petitioner as per the Beneficiaries List issued by the second respondent on 17.06.1994 in respect of the lands acquired pursuant to the Notification issued by the Government in G.O.3 (D) No.705, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 04.10.1994.

¶10

COMMON ORDER

¶11

The names of the petitioners were found place in the local list prepared by respondent No.2 on 17.6.1994. A challenge was made in the said list which ultimately, ended in dismissal of

¶12

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

¶13

the writ petition in W.P.No.17394 of 1997. Thereafter, a fresh list was prepared on the ground that there were subsequent changes in the status of the beneficiaries with respect to their economic status. It is also the case of the respondent that the earlier list was only tentative. Thereafter, a fresh list was prepared and approved by District Collector on 26.01.1996. Thereafter, pattas were issued on 23.02.2001 to the beneficiaries. The second list was prepared on 15.12.2001 and pattas have been issued to the beneficiaries in the month of May 2002. Now, the petitioners have come forward to file these writ petitions placing reliance upon the initial list approved on 17.06.1994.

¶14

Much water has flown under the bridge for the approval of the earlier list on 26.01.1996. It was cancelled followed by two lists prepared and approved. Pattas have been issued thereafter. Everything was over in the month of May 2002. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not challenged the cancellation of the earlier list and the approval of the subsequent list.

¶15

The beneficiaries or the allottees of subsequent list are also not before this Court. Therefore, at this point of time, this Court is not inclined to allow these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS-IV) /TRUE COPY/ SUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR kua To 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep by. The Secretary to the Govt. Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶16

The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Tiruppur, Coimbatore District.

¶17

+1 CC to Govt.Pleader. SR.NO. 67865

¶18

W.P.Nos.42395 to 42400/02 CO-PPA JD 29/12/2015

¶19

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

Rajadevi v. 1.THE Govt., of Tn Rep.by Secy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajadevi v. 1.THE Govt., of Tn Rep.by Secy

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

Anil Kumar Sharma, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Jayakumar Vs The State Bank of India

R.Kumar Vs The Secretary to the

The Pharmaceutical Manufacture Vs Tamilnadu Medical Services

Mary Basilika Vs the Principal Secretary

R. Navaneethan Vs the Exe. Engineer & Administra