Disposed

Lakshmanan v. The District collector

Madras HC29 Aug 2017WP/23122/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition filed by Lakshmanan seeking a direction to respondents to issue a patta under Indira Gandhi Awaaz Yojana Scheme. The court, without expressing an opinion on merits, directed the 4th respondent to consider the representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the petitioner's representation for issuance of patta and pass orders within four weeks.

Lakshmanan Vs The District collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

W.P.No.23122 of 2017
Lakshmanan ...Petitioner
v.
1 The District Collector
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri
2 The District Revenue Officer
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri
3 The Sub Collector
Hosur, Krishnagiri District
4 The Tahsildar'
Taluk Office, Hosur
Krishnagiri District ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider and pass order on the representation dated 03.07.2017 sent by the petitioner within a stipulated period.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.S.Navaneethan Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Mr.S.Navaneethan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes

¶14

notice for the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition itself is

¶15

taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶16

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ

¶17

of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 03.07.2017 sent by him within a time frame.

¶18

Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶19

submitted that though the petitioner sent a representation dated 03.07.2017 to the respondents for the grant of patta for the house allotted to him under Indira Gandhi Awaazs Yojana Scheme, the

¶20

respondents have not passed any order so far.

¶21

4.Mr.S.Navaneethan, learned Additional Government Pleader,

¶22

appearing for the respondents submitted that the 4th respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.07.2017 for the issuance of patta, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks.

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

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 representation dated 03.07.2017 for the issuance of patta and pass

¶26

orders, accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
29.08.2017
Index: Yes/No
Rj
To
1 The District Collector
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri

¶28

2 The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri

¶29

3 The Sub Collector Hosur, Krishnagiri District

¶30

4 The Tahsildar' Taluk Office, Hosur Krishnagiri District

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.DURAISWAMY,J.

W.P.No.23122 of 2017

29.08.2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

Lakshmanan v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanan 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

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

R.Rani Suseela, Vs The General Manager

G.Muruvan, Vs The Commissioner of Land

S.Mahadevan Vs The Assistant Commissioner

S.Arulsamy, Vs The Inspector General of

Sakunthala, W/o.Parasuraman, Vs The District Registrar