Disposed

P.Thangavel v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC23 Nov 2016WP(MD)/22391/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposed of a writ petition for a direction to confirm land records and issue patta. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass a decision on merits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass an order on merits within 12 weeks.

P.Thangavel Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.11.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.22391 of 2016

P.Thangavel

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to confirm the entries made in the village record and issue patta in the name of petitioner in respect of the land comprising survey Nos. 743/1 and 743/2 of Vilpatty Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Anandan For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, directing the respondent to confirm the entries made in the village record and Adangal and issue patta in the name of petitioner in respect of the land comprising survey Nos. 743/1 and 743/2 of Vilpatty Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶16

2.According to the petitioner, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of 1.19 acres in Sy.Nos.743/1 and 743/2 in Vilpatti Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. Hence, he has made an application before the respondent for updating the same in the computer and issue patta in his favour. Sofar, no order has been passed. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

3.Heard the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent, who would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent, for considering the petitioner's representation, within a time frame.

¶18

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

¶19

4.In the above circumstances, since the petitioner's representation is pending from 28.09.2016, the respondent is

¶20

¶21

directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Sd/

¶24

Assistant Registrar(C.O.)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶27

¶28

The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶29

+1CC to M/S.K.Anandan, Advocate, SR.No. 71518

¶30

W.P(MD)No.22391 of 2016

¶31

23.11.2016

¶32

¶33

AM/SS3/AR-2/24.11.2016/2P/3C

¶34

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

P.Thangavel v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Thangavel v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manickam Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Rajakumar Vs the District Collector

P. Manickavasagam, Vs the District Collector

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu