Disposed

P. Rangan v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Feb 2016WP/10377/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 sought a direction to revenue authorities to consider a pending representation regarding land consolidation and patta mutation. The court, noting the representation was pending without orders, did not issue a positive direction but directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks. The second respondent was ordered to consider it and

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation within two weeks; second respondent directed to consider and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

P. Rangan Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16-02-2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No. 10377 of 2014

¶6

P. Rangan .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus 1. The District Collector Office of the District Collector Tirupur District

¶8

The Thasildhar Office of the Thasildhar Avinashi Taluk Tirupur District .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 08.03.2013 and consequently directing the respondents to consolidate all sub division of survey numbers in pursuant to survey number 318/1 in Kuppandampalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tirupur District

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. E.D. Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation dated 08.03.2013 and consequently directing the respondents to consolidate all sub division of survey numbers in pursuant to survey number 318/1 in Kuppandampalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tirupur District.

¶12

According to the petitioner, the land in Survey No.318/1 in Kuppandampalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tirupur District measuring 7.14 acres belonged to his family members and it is in possession of the members of his family jointly. Out of the total extent of 7.14 acres of land, the family members of the petitioner have alienated half of the portion of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the property by means of a registered sale deed and the remaining half share i.e., 3.57 acres of land is being retained and enjoyed by the petitioner and his family members. The

¶13

grievance of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner and others, who are entitled to the land measuring 3.57 acres has not been incorporated in the revenue records and in the patta. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent has sub-divided the land in Survey No.318/1 in to various sub-divisions and unless the name of the petitioner and others is also incorporated in the revenue records in respect of the land measuring 3.57 acres in Survey No.318/1, they could not effectively assert a right over the same. In this context, the petitioner has given a representation dated 08.03.2014 to the respondents reiterating his above request, but there is no response, hence, he has filed this writ petition.

¶14

I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, even though no positive direction could be issued by this Court, since the representation dated 08.03.2014 submitted by the petitioner is pending without any orders passed thereon, I am only inclined to issue a direction to the petitioner to send a fresh representation to the second respondent and on receipt of the same, the second respondent shall consider it and pass orders on its own merits.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to consider it and to pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

rsh To

¶21

The District Collector Office of the District Collector

¶22

Tirupur District

¶23

The Thasildhar

¶24

Office of the Thasildhar

¶25

Avinashi Taluk

¶26

Tirupur District

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.E.D.Sethupathi, Advocate, sr.9946

WP No. 10377 of 2014

msm co

kra 02.03.2016

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

P. Rangan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Rangan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms.R.Mathibanu Vs The Registrar

A.Pushparaj Vs the Collector

A.Govindan Vs The Inspector General of

Arthanarisami, Vs The Regional Officer

N.Subramani Vs The Tashildar

Mrs. Meenakshi Arul Vs The Regional Passport officer