Allowed

K.Paneer Selvam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Feb 2016WP/6480/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an order refusing property mutation on grounds of a pending suit. Court allowed the petition, set aside the order, and directed the authorities to verify the factual position of the caveat petition and proceed with mutation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to verify caveat petition status, issue notices, and effect property tax assessment change within eight weeks.

K.Paneer Selvam, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.6480 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.K.Panneer Selvam
2.K.Dhanasekaran ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2.The Assistant Director,
Town Panchayat,
Salem Region, Salem District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Edankanasalai Town Panchayat,
Sangaragiri, Salem District.
4.P.Murugan ... Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.645/2013 dated 04.11.2013 issued to the 1^st petitioner Na.Ka.No.644/2013 dated 04.11.2013 issued to the 2^nd petitioner and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 3^rd respondent to mutate the name of the Petitioners in the Property Tax Assessment No.10976 & No.10975 for the petitioner's properties in Door No.14/170, 14/170A, Edankanasalai Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District within a period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Nambi Arooran

¶9

For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.L.Mahendran, Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, who is the Executive Officer of a Town Panchayat dated 04.11.2013 and for a consequential direction to direct the 3^rd respondent, to effect change of Property Tax Assessment in respect of the property in question in the name of the petitioners.

¶13

The only reason assigned in the impugned order is that, in respect of the property in question, suit is pending before the District Munsif, Sangagiri in case No.184 of 2013. On receipt of the impugned order, the 1^st petitioner has submitted a representation to the authorities stating that there is no case pending in respect of the property in question and 184 of 2013 is not a case number, it is only the number assigned to the caveat petition filed by the petitioners against Murugan @ Murugamani and that the caveat petition is valid only for a period of 90 days. However, the 3^rd respondent without even calling upon the petitioners to produce necessary documents and satisfying himself with the factual situation has left the matter unattended. This necessitated the petitioners to approach this Court.

¶14

In the light of the fact, that the 1^st petitioner would state that it is only a caveat petition and a copy of the same has also been filed in the typed set of papers, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the 3^rd respondent, who shall verify the factual position and satisfy himself that 184 of 2013 is only a caveat petition and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law for effecting necessary change in the Property Tax Assessment, after notice to the petitioners and the 4^th respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

gya

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶21

2.The Assistant Director,
Town Panchayat,
Salem Region, Salem District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Edankanasalai Town Panchayat,
Sangaragiri, Salem District.
+1cc to Mr.Ajmal Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.8625
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.8847
W.P.No.6480 of 2014
SK(CO)
CA(22/02/2016)

¶22

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

K.Paneer Selvam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Paneer Selvam, 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

B.Narayanan, Vs The District Collector

C. Nagarajan Vs R.Rangarajan

Tamil Nadu Electricity Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

V.K.Narayanasamy Vs the Presiding Officer

S. Ramanujam Vs the Joint Registrar of Coop.

Ans Industries Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and