Partly allowed

D.Jayaprakash v. The District Collector

Madras HC21 Feb 2017WP/4223/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of the writ petition. Recognizing the initial application was not in proper format, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application in the prescribed format to the Tahsildar. Upon receipt, the respondent authority was directed to consider the application on merits and issue patta if justified. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed on these t

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application in prescribed format; 2nd respondent directed to consider same on merits; Writ Petition disposed of.

D.Jayaprakash Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.4223 of 2017

¶6

D. Jayaprakash .. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The District Collector
Vellore District
Vellore.

¶9

The Tahsildar
Arcot Taluk
Vellore District.

¶10

The Village Administrative Officer
Valayathoor Village
Arcot Taluk
Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 06.01.2017 given by the petitioner and direct the 2^nd respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner after sub-division in respect of all that piece and parcel of land situated in Valayathoor Village, comprised in S. No. 171/1C2 of an extent of 0.24.0 ares equivalent to 0.59 cents of land, within the limits of Arcot Taluk and Vellore District and pass further orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Venkateswaran For Respondents : Mr. R.S. Selvam, Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3

¶13

ORDER Mr. R.S. Selvam, learned Government Advocate takes

¶14

notice for respondents 1 to 3. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission itself.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 06.01.2017 and direct the 2^nd respondent to

¶16

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

¶17

issue patta in the name of the petitioner after sub-division in respect of all that piece and parcel of land situated in Valayathoor Village, comprised in S. No. 171/1C2 of an extent of 0.24.0 ares equivalent to 0.59 cents of land, within the limits of Arcot Taluk and Vellore District.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property in Valayathoor Village, comprised in S. No. 171/1C2 of an extent of 0.24.0 ares equivalent to 0.59 cents of land, within the limits of Arcot Taluk and Vellore District, from one Mr.V. Suresh, who acquired the said property by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 01.12.2008. On 27.08.2016, the petitioner applied for patta and since no action was taken on his application, he sent another representation dated 06.01.2017 to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. It is stated that the vendor Mr. V. Suresh possessed joint patta and only a part of the property has been purchased by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶19

Mr. R.S. Selvam, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents submitted that the present application filed by the petitioner is not in proper format. If the petitioner submits his application in proper format before the 2nd respondent, the same would be considered, in accordance with law.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner is directed to file his application for issuance of patta to the subject land, in the prescribed format, as per the prevailing Government orders, to the 2nd respondent. On receipt of such application, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶22

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

avr

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

¶27

¶28

The District Collector Vellore District Vellore.

¶29

The Tahsildar

¶30

Arcot Taluk

¶31

Vellore District.

¶32

The Village Administrative Officer Valayathoor Village Arcot Taluk Vellore District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.K.Venkateswaran,Advocate for the petitioner sr.11381
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.11144
W.P.No.4223 of 2017
kj(co)
ss(22/3/2017)

¶34

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

D.Jayaprakash v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Jayaprakash 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

S.Jayaselan Vs the Secretary to Government

K.Reeta Vs the Managing Director

K.Janarthanan Vs the Union of India

Smt.Muniammal Vs the Joint Commissioner

Rashid Ahmed Vs the Tahsildar

A.Saroja, Vs the Chief Executive Officer