Disposed

V.Rajangam v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC10 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11758/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation for patta grant on merits, following due process, within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for grant of patta on merits and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

V.Rajangam Vs the Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.(MD)No.11758 of 2015 V.Rajangam ... Petitioner Vs.

¶3

1.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶4

2.Subramanian ... Respondents

¶5

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of property comprised in Old S.No.128/1D and New Survey No.487/9 having an extent of 4808 sq.ft., situated in Ayan Natham Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Govt.Pleader for R1 O R D E R

¶7

This writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of property comprised in Old S.No.128/1D and New Survey No.487/9 having an extent of 4808 sq.ft., situated in Ayan Natham Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶8

2.The petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent on 17.06.2015 to grant patta in respect of the petitioner's property in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner, has specifically submitted that there is no rival claim nor any suit pending before the Civil Court in this regard.

¶9

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Govt. Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the first respondent.

¶10

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.06.2015 on merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the interested parties if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶11

Sd/-

¶12

The Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶13

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

¶14

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶15

¶16

To The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶17

+1cc to Mr.R.Murali, Advocate SR.No.37915

¶18

+1cc to special Government Pleader Sr.No.38087

¶19

¶20

Sm:KBM:16.07.2015:2P/4C

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.11758 of 2015 10.07.2015

¶22

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

V.Rajangam v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajangam 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

D. Malayalam, Vs the District Revenue

M.Punitha, W/O Manoharan, Vs the District Registrar

K.Ponniah Vs the District Collector

R. Sivanthi Vs the Tahsildar

D. Pandian Vs the Tahsildar

R.Mohamed Rajapdeen Vs the Commissioner