Disposed

V.P.Mohan Kumar, v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC25 Apr 2016WP/15066/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondent to transfer the patta of land in his favor based on a settlement deed. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after affording a personal hearing and to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 01.04.2016, provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties, and pass orders on transfer of patta within eight weeks.

V.P.Mohan Kumar, Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.15066 of 2016

¶6

V.P.Mohan Kumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Tahsildar, Madhukarai Tahsildar Office, Madhukarai, Coimbatore District. ... Respondent

¶9

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to transfer the patta of the property at Malumichampatti Village, Madhukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore in Survey No.568A/5A measuring about 63 cents in favour of the petitioner by considering the representation dated 01.04.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shanmugam

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Ramesh, Govt. Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondent to transfer the patta in respect of the property at Malumichampatti Village, Madhukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore in Survey No.568A/5A measuring to an extent of 63 cents in favour of the petitioner by considering his representation dated 01.04.2016.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that his wife M.Maheshwari and her father late R.Sadhasivam had filed a partition suit in O.S.No.1332 of 1992 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, in respect of the property at Malumichampatti Village, Madhukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore in S.No.568A/5A measuring to an extent of 63 cents. After due contest, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Pursuant to the same, his wife and her father were in continuous possession and peaceful enjoyment of the property. While so, his wife's father R.Sadhasivam died intestate on 04.03.2014. As his wife being the only legal heir of the said R.Sadhasivam, has enjoyed the said property. Subsequently, she settled the property in favour of the petitioner through a settlement deed dated 28.08.2014, which

¶15

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

¶16

was registered as Document No.3685 of 2014 on the file of Madukkarai Sub Registrar, Coimbatore District. From the date of settlement, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. He has also taken steps to transfer the patta in his name, however, the same ended in vain. Finally, he made a representation dated 01.04.2016 to the respondent, seeking transfer of patta in respect of the said property and the same is pending without any progress. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition for the above stated relief.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶18

Considering the limited nature of the relief sought for herein, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2016, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to all the necessary parties, if any and pass appropriate orders, with regard to transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in S.No.568A/5A at Malumichampatti Village, Madhukkarai Taluk, Coimbatore. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and it is for the respondent to pass appropriate orders purely on merits and in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. rk Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶20

The Tahsildar, Madhukarai Tahsildar Office, Madhukarai, Coimbatore District.

¶21

1 cc to The Govt.Pleader High Court, Madras. Sr 25881 + 1 cc to Mr.S.Saravanan, Advocate Sr 25648 KR/6/6/16

¶22

W.P.No.15066 of 2016

¶23

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

V.P.Mohan Kumar, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Mohan Kumar, 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.P. Ramar Vs The Inspector of Police

M/s. Valvil Ori Transport Vs Indian Oil corporation Ltd.

A.S.Media Vs The Inspector of Police

M/s.Seahorse Marine Vs The Chairman

R.Murugesan, Vs The Inspector of Police

Dr.Keerthika.S. Vs Government of Tamil nadu