Disposed

J. Janakiraman v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC16 Aug 2017WP/21618/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' application for patta issuance and pass orders within eight weeks, giving notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider the petitioners' application for pissaance of patta and pass orders after giving notice to interested parties within eight weeks.

J. Janakiraman Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.21618 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.22634 of 2017

¶6

1.J.Janakiraman
2.J.Hemalatha ... Petitioners
Vs.

¶7

The Tahsildar, O/o. Tahsildar Officer, Puraswalkam Taluk, Chennai – 600 011. ... Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the application dated 07.10.2016 given by the petitioners to the respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶10

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶11

2.The petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the application dated 07.10.2016, within a time frame.

¶12

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that inspite of the petitioners' representation dated 07.10.2016, for the issuance of patta, the respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶13

4.Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioners' application dated 07.10.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

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

¶15

5.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the respondent to consider the petitioners' application dated 07.10.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law, after giving notice to all interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

6.With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rg/ah
To
The Tahsildar,
O/o. Tahsildar Officer,
Puraswalkam Taluk,
Chennai – 600 011.
+2cc to Mr.K.Prabhakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.58465
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.59484
W.P.No.21618 of 2017
G P(CO)
GN(01/09/2017 )

¶18

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

J. Janakiraman v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Janakiraman v. The Tahsildar

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.Travel New Services(India) Vs Airports Authority of India

P.Sindhuja Vs B.Saravana Kumar

Mr.C.Sundara Raj, Vs The General Manager, The Tamil

Mr.R.Muthusami Vs The District Collector

M/s.Pattur Jamia Mosque, Vs The Tamil Nadu

S.Subramani Vs The Chairman Cum