Disposed

G.Muruvan, v. The Commissioner of Land

Madras HC28 Aug 2017WP/21690/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Madras exercised jurisdiction under Article 226. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court directed the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders after notifying interested parties within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider petitioner's representations and pass orders after giving notice to interested parties within six weeks.

G.Muruvan, Vs The Commissioner of Land — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.21690 of 2017

¶6

G.Muruvan ... Petitioner

¶7

v.
1 The Commissioner of Land Administration
Chennai - 600 005
2 The District Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Villupuram
4 The Tahsildar
Vikkiravandi Taluk
Vikkiravandi
Villupuram Dsitrict ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to obtain and submit proposals as per his letter Na.Ka.No.B7/16382/2008, dated 30.12.2016 to the 2nd respondent with regard to the claim of the petitioner for assignment and grant of patta in respect of Thoppu Poramboke land in S.No.181/3 (0.12.5 hectares) in V.Mathur Village, Vikkiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District and further direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon within a time frame.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to obtain

¶12

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

¶13

and submit proposals as per his letter dated 30.12.2016 to the 2nd respondent with regard to the claim of the petitioner for assignment and grant of patta in respect of Thoppu Poramboke land in S.No.181/3 (0.12.5 hectares) in V.Mathur Village, Vikkiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District and further direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon within a time frame.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice to direct the 4th respondent to consider the representations given by the petitioner dated 23.01.2017 and 06.02.2017, in accordance with law.

¶15

Mr.R.Rajeswaran learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the 4th respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties.

¶16

In view of 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 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 23.01.2017 and 06.02.2017 and pass orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

¶18

¶19

¶20

1 The Commissioner of Land Administration Chennai - 600 005 2 The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Villupuram

¶21

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

¶22

4 The Tahsildar

¶23

Vikkiravandi Taluk

¶24

Vikkiravandi

¶25

Villupuram Dsitrict

¶26

- 1 cc to Mr.G.Punniakoti, Advocate,SR.62030

¶27

- 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.62082

¶28

W.P.No.21690 of 2017

¶29

VGII(CO)
NR 21/09/2017

¶30

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

G.Muruvan, v. The Commissioner of Land

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Muruvan, v. The Commissioner of Land

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

Mrs.Vanaroja, Vs The District Collector of

Mrs. Vijaya, Vs The District Collector of

Mrs. Aruna, Vs The District Collector of

K.Sivakumar, S/o.Kandhasamy Vs The District Project Director

R.Rani Suseela, Vs The General Manager

G.Subasri, Vs The Inspector General of