Disposed

Palaniyammal, v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Feb 2017WP/4003/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revenue matter arising out of an application dated 30.01.2014, the High Court directed the Tahsildar to consider petitioner's representation regarding the transfer of patta by removing other names and pass merit orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to consider petitioner's representation of 30.01.2014, pass merit orders, and hear third and fourth respondents within twelve weeks.

Palaniyammal, Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.02.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶4

W.P.No.4003 of 2017

¶5

Palaniyammal ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector,
Salem, Salem District.
2. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District.
3. Ramasamy
4. Chettiyannan .. Respondents

¶6

Prayers: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the application made by the petitioner on 30.01.2014, consequently direct the respondents to transfer the patta No.143 in to the name of the petitioner, by removing the name of 3^rd and 4^th respondents, within the specific period of time fixed by this Court.

¶7

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider his application dated 30.01.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to transfer the patta No.143, in his name, by removing the name of 3^rd and 4^th respondents, within the specific period of time fixed by this Court.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that the petitioner has made a representation to the

¶9

Tahsildar on 30.01.2014 to transfer the patta in his name and remove the name of the respondents 3 & 4. The said representation is still pending and no order has been passed by the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶10

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that if the said representation is pending, the second respondent will consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶11

In view of the submission of the counsel for both sides, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2014 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this orde r, after providing opportunities to parties concerned, viz., 3 rd and 4 th respondent.

¶12

With the above observations and directions, the
Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.
Sd/
Assistant Registrar
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Salem, Salem District.
2. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District.
+1cc to Mr.T.Ganesan, Advocate SR.No.10460
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.10580
W.P.No.4003 of 2017
SDR 08.03.2017

¶13

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

Palaniyammal, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniyammal, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Vinayagam, Vs the Director

Y.Prakash, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Prabhakaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Adaikalam Vs the Secretary to Government

Sandhya, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Thiyagu, S/O.M.Samikannu Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by