Disposed

K.Musafarkani, v. The Tasildhar

Madras HC8 Dec 2016WP/42903/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to pass orders on a representation for sub-division and patta issuance regarding a 0.03 cents property. The Court did not examine merits but directed the respondent to consider the representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2015 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

K.Musafarkani, Vs The Tasildhar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P. No.42903 of 2016

¶6

K.Musafarkani ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Tahsildar Maduranthagam, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2005 and thereby direct him to sub divide the property at No.137, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Senguntharpettai, Madhuranthagam Town 'bearing' Old Survey No.1251/3 and New Survey No.1251/3A, measuring an extent of 0.03 cents (1308 sq.ft.) and to issue patta in his name.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Ajimath Begam For Respondent : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate O R D E R

¶11

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.10.2016 by affording an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time stipulated.

¶13

According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 0.03 cents and he had purchased the above said property from one D.Kumari, by way of registered

¶14

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

¶15

sale deed in Doc.No.523/1995 before the Sub Registrar, Madhuranthagam. Thereafter, he had applied to the respondent for issuance of patta in his name on 07.01.2008. The Town surveyor stopped the further action. The said D.Kumari had filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 2008 against the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Madhuranthagam seeking permanent injunction, which was dismissed on 01.12.2014. After dismissal of the above suit, the petitioner had given a representation to the respondent dated 04.11.2015 for the sub-division of the property. But the respondent has not been considered the same, till date. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶16

Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent and would submit that the request of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶17

5.Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the respondent, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.11.2015 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

¶18

6.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kkd To The Tahsildar Maduranthagam, Kancheepuram District.

¶20

+1cc to Ms.A.Ajimath Begam, Advocate, S.R.No.72514 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.72660

¶21

W.P. No.42903 of 2016 RSY(CO) CA(21/12/2016)

¶22

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

K.Musafarkani, v. The Tasildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Musafarkani, v. The Tasildhar

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

Mahalakshmi Nursing Home Vs The District Appropriate

N.Kannan Vs The Tahsildar

A.Arulappan Vs The District Collector

V.R.Somasundaram, Managing Vs The Commissioner

K.Sakthivel Vs The District Collector

G.Gunasekaran Vs The District Collector