Disposed

Muthuraj v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC6 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11348/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Article 226 sought a mandamus directing the respondent to transfer a pattam in the petitioner's name. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits after giving notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits after giving notice to interested parties within two months.

Muthuraj Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | 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.11348 of 2015

¶7

Muthuraj

¶8

¶9

The Tahsildar, Alangudi, Pudukkottai District.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to transfer patta No.760 in the petitioner's name in survey No.7-3, Sub divided survey No.7-3A with an extent of 1.28.0 hec., situated at Vadakadu Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.06.2015.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.E.Balasubramanian For respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Govt.Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition to transfer patta No.760 in the petitioner's name in survey No.73, Sub divided survey No.7-3A with an extent of 1.28.0 hec., situated at Vadakadu Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.06.2015.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the above-mentioned property belongs to him, to which, there are no rival claims nor any suit is pending. Further, he would aver that already partition had taken place between the petitioner as well as his brother. Hence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner has come forward for the relief stated supra.

¶16

The learned Govt.Advocate for the respondents, on

¶17

¶18

instruction, would submit that, the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶19

In view of the specific submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.06.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the interested parties, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

¶22

ASST REGISTRAR - WRITS

TRUE COPY

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

The Tahsildar, Alangudi, Pudukkottai District.

¶27

DM 22 7 15 – 2P 2C

¶28

W.P(MD).No.11348 of 2015 06.07.2015

¶29

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

Muthuraj v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthuraj 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

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

K. Jeyapaul, Vs the District Collector

P.Subu Lakshmi Vs the District Collector