Disposed

A.Pavadaisamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Jan 2017WP/1046/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting his patta application and directing the District Collector to issue patta. The Court directed the 1st respondent to treat the petitioner's representation as an appeal and dispose of it within four months, subsequently dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the 1st respondent (District Collector) to treat the petitioner's application as an appeal and decide it within four months. Connected W.M.P.Nos. 1014 an

A.Pavadaisamy Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.1046 of 2017

¶6

A.Pavadaisamy ... Petitioner/Party-in-person

¶7

vs.
1. The District Collector,
District Office,
Cuddalore.
2. The Tahsildar,
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore.
3. Navaneetha Ammal
4. Nagarathinam ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records, relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.F(2) 2169/2016, dated 28.07.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue patta to the petitioner insofar as it relates to T.S.No.245/1, in Door No.145, Kuthoos Gurusamy Salai, Cuddalore Mudhunagar, Cuddalore.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Pavadaisamy, Party-in-person

¶10

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.F(2) 2169/2016 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to issue patta to him in respect of the property at Door No.145, Kuthoos Gurusamy Salai, Cuddalore Mudhunagar, Cuddalore situated in T.S.No.245/1.

¶11

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

¶12

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that challenging the impugned order dated 28.07.2016, the petitioner has submitted an appeal to the 1st respondent/District Collector, Cuddalore on 22.10.2016 by Registered Post (RPAD).

¶13

In view of the same, this Court directs the 1st respondent/District Collector, Cuddalore to treat the petitioner's application dated 22.10.2016 as an appeal against the impugned order, and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos.1014 and 1015 of 2017 are closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
aeb
To:
1. The District Collector,
District Office,
Cuddalore.
2. The Tahsildar,
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore.

¶16

+1cc to Mr.A.Pavadaisamy, Advocate SR.No.3216.

¶17

W.P.No.1046 of 2017 GJII(CO) GN(30/01/2017)

¶18

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

A.Pavadaisamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pavadaisamy 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

S. Rajendran Vs The collector

G.Dhandapani, Vs The District Collector

R.Chockalingam, Vs Union of India

Govindammal Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Murugappakkam Kaviarasu Vs Puducherry Housing Board

G.Murugendran, Vs Union of India