Disposed

P. Mayandi v. the Distirict Collector

Madras HC9 Nov 2016WP(MD)/258/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Madras directed the District Collector and other responsive land authorities to consider the petitioner's representations and issue notices to rival claimants, if any, before deciding the matter on merits concerning the assignment and patta issuance for surplus land.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider representations, issue notices to petitioner and rival claimants if any, and pass suitable order on merits within 8 weeks.

P. Mayandi Vs the Distirict Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.11.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.258 of 2014

¶7

P.Mayandi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms) Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Tahsildar, Manpparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta to the petitioner for the land in new S.F.No.7/1A old S.F.No.7/15 of Mattaikurichi Village, Hamlet of T.Edaiyapatti village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District measuring 1.2 acres.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta to the petitioner for the land in new S.F.No.7/1A, old S.F.No.7/15 of Mattaikurichi Village, Hamlet of T. Edaiyapatti village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District, measuring 1.2 acres.

¶14

2.According to the petitioner, on 30.06.1989, certain extent of lands declared as surplus under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, have been assigned to the petitioner on payment of costs. Subsequently, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner also paid necessary land costs for the above said assignments as early as on 01.02.1995 and on subsequent dates.

¶15

¶16

Even after receipt of the above said payment, the respondents 1 & 3 have refused to issue patta in favour of the petitioner. Hence, he made representations to the respondents on 13.08.2013 and 06.10.2013. Sofar, no order has been passed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶17

Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

¶18

4.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents 1 & 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's representations and pass suitable orders, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as rival claimants, if any, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶25

2.The Assistant Commissioner, (Land Reforms) Tiruchirappalli.

¶26

3.The Tahsildar, Manpparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶27

+1 CC to Mr.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate, SR No.67403

¶28

+1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No.67429

¶29

W.P(MD)No.258 of 2014 09.11.2016

¶30

¶31

SH/GSV-PM:29.11.2016:2P/6C

¶32

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

P. Mayandi v. the Distirict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Mayandi v. the Distirict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anaiyappan Vs the District Collector

Al.Kannan Vs the District Registrar

P.Palanichamy, Vs the District Collector

M.Bose, S/O Muthuramalingam Vs the Tahsildar

Minor. M. Sathiyapriya Vs the Chief Secretary

M. Sathyabama, Vs the Director General of