Allowed

K.Bharathi v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Apr 2016WP/13716/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, on a Writ Petition filed under Article 226, directed the Second Respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 10.7.2015 for measuring her land and marking boundaries within eight weeks without examining the merits of her claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 10.7.2015 for land measurement and boundary marking within eight weeks.

K.Bharathi Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.13716 of 2016

¶6

K.Bharathi ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluk,
Chennai-45. ... Respondents
Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing
the second respondent to take necessary action based on the
petitioner's representation dated 10.7.2015 by measuring the
petitioner's land and marking boundaries by the surveyor of the
respondent department.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balasubramanian
For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Ramesh,
Govt. Advocate
ORDER

¶9

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the second respondent to take necessary action based on her representation dated 10.7.2015 by measuring her land and marking boundaries by the surveyor of the respondent department.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that she has purchased a property measuring to an extent of 39 cents from one Varadha Reddiar vide document No.3448 of 1989. She obtained patta bearing No.3496 for the entire extent of the said property from the revenue authority. Thereafter, she submitted a representation dated 9.6.2015 to the second respondent requesting him to depute a Surveyor for measuring her land and

¶12

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

¶13

marking the boundaries. Since no action was taken on the said representation, again she made a representation dated 10.7.2015 to the second respondent and the same was also not considered. Hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to take necessary action based on her representation dated 10.7.2015 by measuring her land and marking boundaries by the surveyor of the respondent department.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.7.2015, seeking to measure her land and mark the boundaries by the surveyor of his department, and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate action, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. sbi -s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. 2. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai-45. + 1 cc to Mr.M.Balasubrmaniam, Advocate SR 23576 + 1 cc to Govt.Pleader SR 23894 vrjk(co) prk20/4 W.P.No.13716 of 2016

¶16

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

K.Bharathi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Bharathi 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

S. Sathish Vs The Inspector of Police

M. Velu Vs The District Collector

Pradeep Jayaraman Vs The Chairman

Chinnathangam, Vs District Collector

G.Aarthi Vs The Branch Manager

S.Govindaraj Vs The Appellate Authority/