Disposed

K. Jeyapaul, v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11302/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a stay on the issuance of a separate patta to a specific respondent. The court held that the prayer could not be granted as an interim order and directed the official respondent to decide the representation on merits after serving notice to all interested parties within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to decide the petitioner's representation on merits within two months after serving notice on all interested parties.

K. Jeyapaul, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :06.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.11302 of 2015

¶7

K.Jeyapaul ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District.

¶11

3.D.Paulraj 4.Jasmin Manoranjitham ... Respondents

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent from issuing separate patta to the fourth respondent in respect of the properties in S.No.104 in joint patta No.361, Vembaar Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Sherbudden For R.1&2 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate takes notice

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent from issuing separate patta to the fourth respondent in respect of the properties in S.No.104 in joint patta No.361, Vembaar Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶16

Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the official respondents.

¶17

By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the official respondents, on merits and in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that the prayer in this Writ Petition cannot be countenanced in law. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

As rightly pointed out by the learned Govt.Advocate , at the

¶23

outset, the prayer as such cannot be granted in this Writ Petition. Therefore, this Court does not incline to issue any positive direction to the official respondents herein. Without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.06.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner, the third and the fourth respondents as well as any other interested parties, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Ssm

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar[AE]

¶28

/True copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶32

2.The Tahsildar,

¶33

Vilathikulam Taluk, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District.

¶34

+1 cc to Mr.M.Mohamed Sherbudeen, Advocate SR.No.36177.

¶35

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.36546.

¶36

W.P(MD).No.11302 of 2015

Dated:06.07.2015

2P/5C

RPB 22.07.2015

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

K. Jeyapaul, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Jeyapaul, 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

P.A. Vidhya Bhavan Higher Vs the District Collector

Navaneethakrishnan, Vs the Managing Director

S. Selvaraj, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S B.G. Naidu Sweets, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Muthuraj Vs the Tahsildar

P.Subu Lakshmi Vs the District Collector