Dismissed

V.Sudalai v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Jul 2015WP(MD)/12705/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Court directed the second respondent to complete pending proceedings for correcting chitta and adangal regarding the petitioner's land within six weeks, after giving notice to interested parties and verifying records, without delving into the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed to complete proceedings and pass appropriate orders, on merits, within six weeks.

V.Sudalai Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.07.2015 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD).No.12705 of 2015

V.Sudalai

...Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶8

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office,

¶9

Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer:-

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to conclude the enquiry and pass suitable orders on the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2012 in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.12906 of 2012 dated 15.11.2012 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.Pon.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Govt.Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for making necessary correction in the chitta and adangal in respect of S.No.208-9, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, owned by him.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is already a direction in W.P.(MD).No.12906 of 2012 to the respondents to make changes in the chitta and adangal in respect of S.No.208-9, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, owned by the petitioner. Inspite of that, the respondents have not carried out any correction sofar. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that already proceedings have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commenced and necessary orders will be passed in accordance with law.

¶19

¶20

Though the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus for the making correction in the chitta and adangal, making correction in the chitta and adangal is nothing but giving recognition of the lands possessed by the applicant. It is one of the essential documents for sale of the property in question. Hence, while making necessary correction in the chitta and adangal to the applicant, the Revenue authorities has to consider each and every aspect involved for the grant of patta, as it may very much affect the innocent owner.

¶21

Needless to state that the petitioner should have filed a contempt petition once the order made in W.P.(MD).No.12906 of 2012, dated 15.11.2012 has not been complied with. However, the petitioner once again has approached this Court for the very same relief. In the case on hand, since the petitioner claims that there is no rival claim nor suit is pending and already proceedings have been commenced, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to complete the proceedings already initiated in respect of the issue in question, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the interested parties, if any, and also after verifying the relevant records as on date, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (Per.Admn)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶28

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶29

- 1 CC TO M/S.R.PONKARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE IN SR NO.40507

¶30

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR NO.40918

¶31

ssm: te : 1/08/2015: 2p/5c

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD).No.12705 of 2015 23.07.2015

V.Sudalai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sudalai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Muthupalaniappan, Vs the Inspector General of

A.Vellaichamy Vs the Tahsildar

P.Ramalakshmi Vs the District Collector

M/S. Vedanta Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner(Smr)

M/S. Raja Enterprises, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Periyasamy, Vs the Commissioner