Disposed

K.K.M.Sambanthan Naicker, v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC21 Sept 2017WP/25226/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition directs the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.03.2017 regarding survey and grant of Patta for multiple properties within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.03.2017 and pass orders within eight weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

K.K.M.Sambanthan Naicker, Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.09.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

W.P.No.25226 of 2017

¶7

K.K.M.Sambanthan Naicker [ Petitioner ] Vs

¶8

The Tahsildar Thirukkazhukundram Taluk Kanchipuram 603 109 [Respondent]

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to measure and survey the petitioner properties comprised in No.58 Puliyur Village Punjai Old S.No.1 New S.No.1/3 an extent of 67 Cents Punjai S.No.20/1A 3 cents S.No.20/1B an extent of 38 Cents Punjai S.No.20/2A an extent of 40 Cents Punjai S.No.20//2B 7 Cents Punjai S.No.10/1C1 an extent of 4 Cents Punjai Old S.No.1 New S.No.1/3 an extent of 75 Cents and Punjai S.No.10/1C1 an extent of 4 Cents totally two Acres 38 Cents and to grant of Patta infavour of the Petitioner with effected subdivision as per the representations dated 27.03.2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anandha Babu For Respondent : Mr.S.Navaneethan, AGP

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.S.Navaneethan, learned Additional Government Pleader,

¶15

takes notice for the respondent. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶16

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to measure and survey his properties comprised in No.58, Puliyur Village Punjai, Old S.No.1, New S.No.1/3, measuring an extent of 67 Cents, Punjai S.No.20/1A, measuring an extent of 3 cents, S.No.20/1B measuring an extent of 38 Cents, Punjai S.No.20/2A measuring an extent of 40 Cents, Punjai S.No.20//2B measuring an extent of 7 Cents, Punjai S.No.10/1C1 measuring an extent of 4 Cents, Punjai Old S.No.1, New S.No.1/3, measuring an extent of 75 Cents and Punjai S.No.10/1C1 measuring an extent of 4 Cents, totally measuring an extent two Acres 38 Cents and to grant of Patta in his favour with effected subdivision as per the representation dated 27.03.2017.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the petitioner's representation dated 27.03.2017, the respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

Mr.S.Navaneethan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.03.2017 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks, after giving notice to all the interested parties.

¶21

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 27.03.2017 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to all the interested parties.

¶22

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No

¶23

costs.

¶24

To The Tahsildar Thirukkazhukundram Taluk Kanchipuram 603 109

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

M.DURAISWAMY, J. rg

¶28

W.P.No.25226 of 2017
1/2

¶29

21.09.2017

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.K.M.Sambanthan Naicker, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.M.Sambanthan Naicker, 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

Taimore Ali Khan, Vs State rep. by Inspector

S.Vijayanand Vs District Collector

M/s.v.Link System (P) Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

B.Bhuvaneshwari Vs The District Collector

Munusamy Vs The District Revenue Officer

Sri Shakthi kailamman Temple Vs The Collector