Disposed

N.Subramani v. The Tashildar

Madras HC16 Feb 2016WP/1932/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a claim for increased land measurement. Directing the petitioner to approach the District Revenue Officer with a fresh representation, the court ordered the DRO to call records and decide merits after personal hearing within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation with DRO; DRO directed to call records and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks after personal hearing.

N.Subramani Vs The Tashildar — 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

W.P.No.1932 of 2016

¶6

and WMP.No.1689 of 2016

¶7

N.Subramani .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs. The Tahsildar Purasawalkam Taluk Office, Chennai-3. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in proceedings No.A2/7239/2015 dated 24.11.2015 and quash the same consequently direct the respondent to remeasure petitioner's property and mentioned the proper measurement in the patta of petitioner property bearing Old Door No.27, New D.No.57, Vadamalai Street, Purasawakkam Chennai-7 as per the surveyor report.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.T.Nixon For respondent : M/s.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP. O R D E R

¶10

For respondent : M/s.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP.

¶11

With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

2.The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in proceedings No.A2/7239/2015 dated 24.11.2015 and to quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to remeasure the petitioner's property and mention the proper measurement in the patta of the petitioner's property bearing Old Door No.27, New D.No.57, Vadamalai Street, Purasawakkam Chennai-7 as per the surveyor report.

¶13

3.Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

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

¶15

4.The petitioner is an practising Advocate, he purchased the property bearing Old No.24B, New No.57, Vadamalai Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai-7 vide document No.375 of 2013 registered on the file of Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam. As per the sale deed, the total constructed area of the property is 400sq.ft. But in the patta book of the vendor Rajavelu, it is shown as 365sq.ft. The vendor constructed the building and lived there for nearly 20 years. Now the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment the property without any hindrance.

¶16

5.In this regard, the petitioner submitted an application on 04.06.2014 seeking to measure the property and change the name in patta with full measurement of 400sq.ft. One Chandrasekar/ Surveyor measured the property and confirmed the area is measured about 400sq.ft and submitted a report before the respondent. On 03.07.2014, the respondent sent a letter to Tahsildar, Perambur Office requesting to submit the old records relating to the property, but, till date there is no response from the respondent.

¶17

6.The petitioner on earlier occasion filed WP.No.29870 of 2015 before this Court to consider the representation dated 04.06.2014, this Court by an order dated 23.09.2015 directed the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the respondent on his own accord put the measurement as 367 sq.ft and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the order passed by the respondent.

¶18

7.The learned Additional Government Pleader Submits that if the petitioner submits fresh representation before the appellate authority/District Revenue Officer, Chennai the same would be considered in the manner known to law.

¶19

8.In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court directs the petitioner to give fresh representation to the District Revenue Officer, Chennai. On receipt of such representation, the District Revenue Officer, Chennai is directed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent herein in No.A2/7239/2015 dated 24.11.2015 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the necessary parties, if any.

¶20

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

¶21

9.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsh
To
1. The Tahsildar
Purasawalkam Taluk Office, Chennai-3.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.T. Nixon, Advocate, S.R.No.9842
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.9976
CA(CO)
EU(11/03/2016)
W.P.No.1932 of 2016.

¶24

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

N.Subramani v. The Tashildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Subramani v. The Tashildar

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

Ms.R.Mathibanu Vs The Registrar

A.Pushparaj Vs the Collector

A.Govindan Vs The Inspector General of

P. Rangan Vs the District Collector

Arthanarisami, Vs The Regional Officer

Mrs. Meenakshi Arul Vs The Regional Passport officer