Allowed

Kaliyaperumal v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Apr 2016WP/13815/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench in Madras HC granted a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk to consider a representation by the petitioner dated 10.7.2015 and take necessary action to measure his land and mark boundaries within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.7.2015, measure his land and mark boundaries through a surveyor, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Kaliyaperumal Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.13815 of 2016

¶6

Kaliyaperumal ... 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 his representation dated 10.7.2015 by measuring his land and marking boundaries by the surveyor of the respondent department.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased a property measuring to an extent of 44 ½ cents from one Varadha Reddiar vide document No.3449 of 1989. He obtained patta bearing No.3497 for the entire extent of the said property from the revenue authority. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 9.6.2015 to the second respondent

¶12

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

¶13

requesting him to depute a Surveyor for measuring his land and marking the boundaries. Since no action was taken on the said representation, again he 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 his representation dated 10.7.2015 by measuring his 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 his 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 Govt.Pleader SR 23896 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Balasubramaniam, Advocate SR 23577 nrjk(co) prk20/4 W.P.No.13815 of 2016

¶16

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

Kaliyaperumal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliyaperumal 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/