Dismissed

Mrs.Uma Maheshwari Ramasamy, v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC6 Sept 2016WP/10192/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 18.01.2016 regarding land patta and mutation within eight weeks after hearing, without expressing opinion on merits. Connected M.P. closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 18.01.2016 on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks.

Mrs.Uma Maheshwari Ramasamy, Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 06-09-2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

Writ Petition No.10192 of 2016

¶6

Mrs.Uma Maheswari Ramasamy .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Tahsildar Coimbatore North Taluk Coimbatore. 2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director No.331, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai-35. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer : The writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the the first respondent to grant patta to the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's land measuring 0.63.3/4 comprised in Survey No.349, situated at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District and effect consequent mutation of title in revenue records within the stipulated time.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.A.V. Raja For Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi Addl.Govt.Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.V.Anandamuthy

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

2.This writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the the first respondent to grant a patta to the petitioner, in respect of the petitioner's land, having an extent of 0.63.3/4 acres, comprised in Survey No.349, situated at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District, and effect consequent mutation of title in the revenue records, within the stipulated time.

¶14

3.Though various grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to

¶15

dispose of the representation, dated 18.1.2016, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time frame, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶16

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.01.2016, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as to the other persons concerned, if any. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the representation, dated 18.01.2016, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, by passing this order.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of, with the above
directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is
closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS II )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Tahsildar
Coimbatore North Taluk
Coimbatore.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board
rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
No.331, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai-35.
+1 cc to M/s.V.Anandha murthy,advocate,sr.50517
+1 cc to M/s.A.V.Raja,advocate,sr.50412.
nr(co)
krd 27/9
Writ Petition No.10192 of 2016

¶18

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

Mrs.Uma Maheshwari Ramasamy, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Uma Maheshwari Ramasamy, 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

R.Rajendran Vs The Inspector General of

R.Subbiah Naidu Vs The District Collector

P.Vanitha Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

K.M.Govindasamy, Vs The District Collector

K.Murugammal, Vs The Director

D.Usha, Vs The Secretary to Government