Remanded

Mrs.H.Rajeshwari v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Nov 2016WP/20110/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate to consider a representation for issuing a pending property tax receipt for the year 2005-06. The Court, noting the absence of title documents, declined to give positive directions, instead directing the respondent to investigate the grievance and reply within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to look into the petitioner's grievance, send a reply regarding the state of affairs, and complete the exercise within six weeks.

Mrs.H.Rajeshwari Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 17.11.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. No.20110 of 2014

Mrs.H.Rajeshwari

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kanchipuram. 2.The Executive Officer, Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat, Sripeumbudur, Kanchipuram District. 3.The Assistant Director, Town Panchayat, Kanchipuram District-631 501.

¶10

4.The Director, Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 001. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.03.2014, insofar as in the said representation, the petitioner had sought for to issue property tax receipt by accepting the payment due as on date for her property situated at No.5/2, Thirumangaiyazhwar Kulakkarai Street, Sriperumbudur602 105, Kanchipuram District, which has been done till the year 2005-06 and the property tax receipt of which has not been issued thereafter.

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.03.2014. The petitioner, in the said representation, has requested the second respondent to issue property tax receipt by accepting the

¶13

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

¶14

payment for the year 2005-2006, but the second respondent has not considered her representation and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

In the typed set of papers, the petitioner has not filed any patta or furnished documents to show that she is in lawful possession of the property. One copy of the property tax receipt dated 15.03.2006 has been filed showing that property tax has been remitted for the period 2005-2006 first and second half and with that document, the petitioner wants the property tax to be assessed in her favour.

¶16

Though the respondents have been served, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

¶17

Considering the nature of dispute involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to give any positive direction to the respondents, but would direct the second respondent to look into the petitioner's grievance and send a reply to the petitioner as to what is the exact state of affairs so as to enable the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law. The above said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Jvm Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶19

1.The District Collector, Kanchipuram. 2.The Executive Officer, Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat, Sripeumbudur, Kanchipuram District.

¶20

3.The Assistant Director, Town Panchayat, Kanchipuram District-631 501.

¶21

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

¶22

4.The Director, Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 001.

¶23

+1cc to Government Pleader, Sr.67084

¶24

W.P. No. 20110 of 2014

¶25

ALA(CO) RVR 19/01/2017

¶26

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

Mrs.H.Rajeshwari v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.H.Rajeshwari 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

Mr. R.Venkatesan, Vs The District Collector

B.Chandrasekaran Vs The Secretary

M/s.Javeed Ahamed & Co., Vs The Assistant Çommissioner(Ct)

C.Suseela, Vs Thiru.R.Venkatesan, Ias.

M/s.Adyar Anandha Bhavan Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Vaibhav Daga Vs Nagamani