Disposed

D.Charles, v. The Thasildhar

Madras HC14 Sept 2017WP/24625/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition seeking mutation of revenue records. Without adjudicating merits, the High Court directed the Thasildhar to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within four weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2017 and pass orders within four weeks after giving notice to interested parties. No costs.

D.Charles, Vs The Thasildhar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.24625 of 2017

¶6

D.Charles

¶7

The Thasildhar Mambalam Taluk Ashok Nagar Chennai-78

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to effect mutation of revenue records including Town Survey Land Register in respect of Survey Field No.29 Old Survey No.24 Block No.26 7 ares and 62 sq.mtrs situate Virugambakakm Mambalam Taluk Chennai District in favour of the petitioner and other legal representatives through M.Dhanaraj by considering the representation of the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanamoorthy For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, SGP O R D E R

¶10

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader Counsel takes notice for the respondent and by consent, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to effect mutation of revenue records including Town Survey Land Register in respect of Survey Field No.29, Old Survey No.24, Block No.26, measuring an extent of 7 ares and 62 sq.mtrs situated at Virugambakakm, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai District, in his favour and other legal representatives through M.Dhanaraj, by considering his representation.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a representation on 23.08.2017 to the respondent, however, the respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2017 and pass orders in accordance with law, within four weeks' time.

¶15

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 petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2017 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to all the interested parties.

¶16

With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rg
To
The Thasildhar
Mambalam Taluk Ashok Nagar Chennai-78
+1 cc to Mr.N.Suresh Advocate sr 66938
+1 cc to the Govt Pleader sr 67772

¶17

W.P.No.24625 of 2017 nm(co) aa09/10/2017

¶18

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

D.Charles, v. The Thasildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Charles, v. The Thasildhar

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

A.Karuppaiah, Vs The Commissioner of

S.K.Sindhu Vs The Branch Manager

T.Valliammal Vs The District Collector

M.Nagarajan, Vs The Inspector General of

M/s.Superfil Products Private Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

M.Basheer Ahamed, Vs Superintendent Archaeologist