Disposed

K.M.Govindasamy, v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Sept 2016WP/31095/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act and cancel a patta issued to another person. The Court directed the Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within eight weeks after giving a hearing opportunity, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within eight weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

K.M.Govindasamy, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.09.2016

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶4

W.P.No.31095 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶5

K.M.Govindasamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Vellore District.
Vellore.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thirupathur Taluk,
Thirupathur,
Vellore District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Prevention of Land Grabbing Section,
Vellore-9.
5.D.Govindaraj .. Respondents

¶6

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the third respondent /Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry, under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, in pursuance of the representation of the petitioner, dated 2.6.2014 and pass necessary orders with regard to the cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent, without following the due process of law.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rathanavel For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl.G.P for RR1 to 4 No appearance for R-5

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. There is no representation on behalf of the fifth respondent.

¶11

2 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent/ Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry, under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, dated 2.6.2014 and pass necessary orders, with regard to the cancellation of the patta, issued in favour of the fifth respondent, without following the due process of law.

¶12

3 Though various grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 2.6.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

¶13

4 In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the third respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 2.6.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as to the fifth respondent and the other persons concerned, if any. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the representation, dated 2.6.2014, to the third respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶14

5 The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

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

¶20

To
1.The District Collector,
Vellore District.
Vellore.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thirupathur Taluk,
Thirupathur,
Vellore District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Prevention of Land Grabbing Section,
Vellore-9.
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.51652
+1cc to Mr.P.Rathanavel, Advocate Sr.12049
W.P.No.31095 of 2014
lrs[co]
srg 29/09/2016

¶21

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

K.M.Govindasamy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Govindasamy, 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

R.Rajendran Vs The Inspector General of

R.Subbiah Naidu Vs The District Collector

P.Vanitha Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

Mrs.Uma Maheshwari Ramasamy, Vs The Tahsildar

K.Murugammal, Vs The Director

D.Usha, Vs The Secretary to Government