Partly allowed

Kalipandi v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC31 Jul 2015WP(MD)/13646/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus for surveying specific land. The single-judge bench directed the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within four weeks by giving notice to interested parties, without adjudicating the land claim itself.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2015 on merits after giving notice to interested parties within four weeks.

Kalipandi Vs the Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.07.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶3

W.P.(MD)No.13646 of 2015

Kalipandi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Thasildar, Thasildar Office, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to survey and fix the boundary stones to the petitioner's land in Survey No.390/1B1 to an extent of 1.47½ acres situate at Akilandapuram Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2015 within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Veilmuthu For Respondent : Mr.K.Guru, AGP

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to survey and fix the boundary stones to the petitioner's land in Survey No.390/1B1 to an extent of 1.47½ acres situate at Akilandapuram Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2015 within a time frame.

¶13

2.Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the official respondent. By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that having received the amount for surveying the petitioner's land, the respondent has not surveyed the land. However, the learned counsel would submit that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the respondent, on merits and in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the respondent

¶17

¶18

is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.07.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the interested parties, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶22

/True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Thasildar,

¶26

Thasildar Office, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.K.VEILMUTHU, ADVOCATE SR NO.42902

¶28

+1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR NO.43603

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.13646 of 2015 31.07.2015

¶30

RG.12.08.2015 2P/4C

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

Note: Issue order copy on 06.08.2015

¶34

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

Kalipandi v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalipandi v. the Tahsildar

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/S. Nagappa Corporation Vs the Appellate Deputy

P.Raju, S/O Panchavarnam, Vs the District Collector

V. Saran, Vs the Disrict Collector

J.Thambi Vs the District Collector

Ramani Engineering Vs the Assistant Commisisoner

S.Balasubramanian Vs the Inspector General of