Allowed

M.Shanmugam, v. the Executive Officer

Madras HC10 Nov 2016WP/8613/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Executive Officer to consider the petitioner's application for transfer of property tax assessment records without influence from complaints against a Clerk and to pass orders on merits within three weeks, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for transfer of property tax records on merits within three weeks, uninfluenced by complaints.

M.Shanmugam, Vs the Executive Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.11.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.8613 of 2014

¶6

M.Shanmugam [ PETITIONER ]

¶7

¶8

The Executive Officer

¶9

Kannamangalam Town Panchayat Arni Taluk,

¶10

Tiruvannamalai District. [RESPONDENT]

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to effect the name transfer and assess tax in respect of our property in S.No.224/13, New Nattam S.No.631/13,14, O.S.No.224/2020, New Nattam S.No.631/12 of an extent of 98.94 square meters in Kannamangalam Village No.3, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Panneerchelvam

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.N.Sakthivel

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard Mr.A.Panneerchelvam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Sakthivel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶17

2.The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition to direct the respondent to effect name transfer of the property tax assessment in his name.

¶18

3.The petitioner along with his brother are the joint owners of the land in Survey No.224/13, New Nattam S.No.631/13,13,14, O.S.No.224/2010, New Nattam S.No.631/12 of an extent of 98.94 square meters in Kannamangalam Village No.3, Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. The petitioner has purchased the properties by virtue of two Sale Deeds both dated 14.3.2011,

¶19

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

¶20

registered as Document Nos.536 & 2241 of 2011, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kannamangalam, Thiruvannamalai District. The petitioner is said to have obtained patta from the Tahsildar, a hut was put up by the petitioner and submitted Application on 08.11.2013, for effecting name transfer in the property tax assessment records maintained by the respondent. Since there was a delay in considering the same. Petitioner's submitted representation to the District Collector.

¶21

4.It is seen that the petitioner has made an allegation against one of the Clerk in the Office of the respondent and because of three issues raised by the petitioner, including the Police complaint, the matter was put in cold storage. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

5.Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's Application for transfer of the property tax assessment records in the name of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall consider the petitioner's Application, without in any manner being influenced by the complaints which were given by the petitioner against the Clerk.

¶23

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpa To The Executive Officer Kannamangalam Town Panchayat Arni Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. +1cc to Mr.A.Panneerchelvam, Advocate sr.64806

¶24

W.P.No.8613 of 2014 scd[co] srg 08/12/2016

¶25

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

M.Shanmugam, v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Shanmugam, v. the Executive Officer

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

M/S.Ppn Power Generating Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M/S.Sun Direct Tv Private Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Tvl.Srikumaran Spinners, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Skylite Hardware Trading Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Mr. P.Jayakumar, Vs The Managing Director

K.Dhanraj, Vs Mr.Mayakrishnan