Disposed

P.Kusela Kumar, v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC8 Dec 2017WP/31875/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2015 for sub-division of property and issue of a separate patta. The Court directed the decision to be passed on merits within eight weeks of receiving the order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the representation dated 23.01.2015 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks of receiving the copy of this order.

P.Kusela Kumar, Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.31875 of 2017

¶6

P.Kusela Kumar ... Petitioner vs. The Tahsildar, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. ...Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2015 within the time frame to be stipulated by this Court seeking sub-division of the petitioner property situated at No.184, Arungunam village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District bearing survey No.183/15 admeasuring to an extent of 1.50 Ares comprised in patta No.898 and issue separate patta in the petitioner's name.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilagaraj

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, Government Advocate

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent and by consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2015 within the time frame to be stipulated by this Court seeking sub-division of the petitioner property situated at No.184, Arungunam village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District bearing survey No.183/15 admeasuring to an extent of 1.50 Ares comprised in patta No.898 and issue separate patta in the petitioner's name.

¶14

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

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered so far. At this stage, this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner as it is for the respondent to consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has made a representation as early as in the year 2015 which is sought to be disposed of in this writ petition, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.01.2015 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the rival claimants, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
The Tahsildar,
Madurantakam Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
+1cc to Mr.Thigaraj, Advocate SR.No.87356
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.88146

¶17

W.P.No.31875 of 2017 MG(CO) GN(21/12/2017)

¶18

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

P.Kusela Kumar, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kusela Kumar, 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

S.Sakthivel Vs K.Jayaprakash

S.Bharath Kumar Vs Dharmendra Pratap Yadav IAS

Nithyaesh Natraj Vs The Central Information

D.Devendiran Vs The District Collector

P.Raman, Vs The Inspector of Police

G.Manoharan Vs Revision Authority/ The