Dismissed

Manickam v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Feb 2017WP/3102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking mutation of revenue records for property purchased in 1995. Court dismissed petition due to statutory non-compliance, noting the petitioner failed to apply for patta in the prescribed form despite purchasing the property over two decades ago.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. This order will not preclude the petitioner applying afresh in a prescribed form.

Manickam Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.3102 of 2017

Manickam

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Tandarampet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2017 and to mutate the revenue records in the name of the petitioner in respect of property admeasuring 1.24 acres comprised in Survey No.99/2, 2.80 acres out of 2.90 acres comprised in Survey No.99/3, thus totally admeasuring 4.04 acres situated at Koodalur Village, Tandarampet Taluk and Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan For Respondents: Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 25.01.2017 and to mutate the revenue records in his name in respect of property admeasuring 1.24 acres comprised in Survey No.99/2, 2.80 acres out of 2.90 acres comprised in Survey No.99/3, totally admeasuring 4.04 acres situated at Koodalur Village, Tandarampet Taluk and Thiruvannamalai District.

¶16

According to the petitioner, he purchased the property in question vide Sale Deed dated 27.06.1995 and since then, he

¶17

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

¶18

is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the properties were purchased as early as on 27.06.1995, the revenue authorities failed to mutate the revenue records in his name. Apart from approaching the respondents in person and requesting them to transfer patta in his name, he sent a representation dated 25.01.2017 to the respondents through Registered post. Since no reply is forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court with the above Writ Petition.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 4. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has not applied for patta in the prescribed form along with the requisite fee. Though he claims to have purchased the subject property in the year 1995 itself, he made a representation to the respondents seeking patta, only on 25.01.2017 and he has filed this Writ Petition on 31.01.2017 itself. Having slept for more than two decades, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents only recently and without even waiting for their reply, he has hastily approached this Court. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. This order will not preclude the petitioner applying afresh in a prescribed form.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Aeb
To:
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.

¶21

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

¶22

The Tahsildar, Tandarampet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.G. Rajan, Advocate, S.R.No.8306 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.8279

rk(CO)

md(03/03/2017)

W.P.No.3102 of 2017

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

Manickam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manickam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Maheshwari Builders Vs Chief Engineer

M/S. Mohata Construction Vs Chief Engineer

V.Senthilkumar Vs The Secretary

Tmt.K.Arul Subha Vs The Commissioner of Police

P.Jayapal, Vs The Sub Registrar

Hosurammal Vs The District Collector