Disposed

R.Malarkodi v. the President

Madras HC6 Jan 2017WP/4017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging sanction for construction on disputed land, the High Court could not dispose merits. It directed the Special Officer to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within three months after providing parties a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed; Party to submit fresh representation; Authority to pass orders on merits within three months.

R.Malarkodi Vs the President — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.4017 of 2013

¶6

R. Malarkodi .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The President
Kidangal Panchayat
Kidangal, Mamakudy Post
Tranquebar Taluk,
Nagai Street.
2. Satya
W/o. Kumar
Kidangal Main Road
Kidangal, Mamakudy Post
Tranquebar Taluk,
Nagai Street. .. Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to recall the permission granted to the second respondent for the purpose of construction on the property of the petitioner in Survey No. 549/2 of Kidangal Village and take necessary steps in pursuance of such cancellation and pass further orders.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Goklaney

¶9

For Respondents: Mr. R.A.S. Senthilvel Govt. Advocate for R1 No appearance for R2 ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to recall the permission granted to the 2^nd respondent for the purpose of construction on the property of the petitioner in Survey No. 549/2 of Kidangal Village and take necessary steps pursuant to such cancellation.

¶11

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

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject property was settled vide a registered settlement deed dated 04.03.1960 to the petitioner by her father. After introduction of the Inams Abolition Act, 1963 and after survey, an extent of 34 ares remained in the possession of the petitioner. The patta and other revenue records also revealed the same. Whileso, the 1^st respondent accorded permission in favour of the 2^nd petitioner to put up construction on the land belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice on 15.12.2011 through his counsel to the 1^st respondent stating the facts and requesting to withdraw the sanction. However, no steps were taken by the 1^st respondent. In the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent constructed a superstructure on the said land. Hence, another notice was issued on 09.07.2012 by the petitioner through his counsel to take consequent steps to demolish the unauthorised construction. However, no steps were taken and hence the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the abovesaid prayer.

¶13

Learned Government Advocate representing the 1^st respondent brought to the notice of this Court, the Resolution No.12/2012 passed by the Kidangal Panchayat, cancelling the house tax assessed by the 1^st respondent.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the 1^st respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶15

As per the Resolution of the Kidangal Panchayat, the house tax assessed has been cancelled. However, the prayer in the writ petition is to recall the permission granted to the 2^nd respondent to put up construction on the subject property, for which no orders have been passed by the 1^st respondent. This Court cannot consider the said prayer, without going into merits of the case. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to a limited extent and sought this Court to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation, along with a copy of this order to the 1^st respondent/ the present Special Officer. On receipt of the same, the Special Officer is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possibly, preferably within a period of three

¶17

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

¶18

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

The Writ Petition is disposed of, on the above
terms. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
avr
To
The President
Kidangal Panchayat
Kidangal, Mamakudy Post
Tranquebar Taluk,
Nagai Street.
+1cc to Mr.S.Sounthar, Advocate sr.2123
+2cc to Mr.Prakash Goklaney, Advocate sr.1361
W.P.No.4017 of 2013
ss1(co)
ss(28/02/2017)

¶20

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

R.Malarkodi v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Malarkodi v. the President

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

S.Santhosh, Vs the Secretary

K.Naveen Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Kothandaraman Vs State of Tamilnadu

K.Nachimuthu Vs the Ditrict Manager II

T.Saraswathi, Vs the District Collector

V.Mageshkumar, Vs the General Manager