Disposed

S.Manohar, v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC21 Aug 2017WP/22204/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing revenue authorities to effect mutation in his favour. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders on merits within eight weeks after hearing interested parties. The petition was disposed without addressing merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider representations and pass orders on merits within eight weeks after hearing all interested parties.

S.Manohar, Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.22204 of 2017

¶6

S.Manohar ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Tahsildar,
Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur.
2. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,

¶9

Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupur. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to effect mutation on all revenue records viz. Patta, Chitta, Adangal and A-Register Extract in favour of the petitioners and other co-owners in respect of the lands of an extent of 0.97.0 hectares, comprised in Survey No.46/2-B, at Sarkar Periyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tirupur District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2016 and 30.07.2017 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Raja

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi,

¶13

Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to effect mutation on all revenue records viz. Patta, Chitta, Adangal and A-Register Extract in favour of the petitioners and other coowners in respect of the lands of an extent of 0.97.0 hectares, comprised in Survey No.46/2-B, at Sarkar Periyapalayam Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tirupur District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2016 and 30.07.2017.

¶16

Mr.A.V.Raja, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the petitioner's

¶17

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

¶18

representations dated 02.06.2016 and 30.07.2017, the 1^st respondent has not passed any orders so far.

¶19

Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, the learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

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 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 02.06.2016 and 30.07.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties.

¶21

With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VI)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
tsi
To
1. The Tahsildar,
Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupur.
+ 1 cc to M/s.A.V.Raja, Advocate,SR.59801
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.60189
W.P.No.22204 of 2017
BR(CO)
NR 08/09/2017

¶22

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

S.Manohar, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Manohar, v. The Tahsildar

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

Karthikai Rajan Vs The Special Commissioner

Govindan Vs The Special Commissioner

R.Chokkammal Vs The Commissioner of Hr & Ce

G.Ramesh Vs The District Collector

R.Santhalingam, Vs The Revenue Divisional

C.Kaliyappa Gounder, Vs The Tahsildar