Disposed

C.S.Chandra v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Jan 2017WP/44265/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Court directed the Tahsildar (2nd respondent) to consider the petitioner's representation regarding her landed property on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's representation and application on merits after hearing, within three months.

C.S.Chandra Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶6

W.P.No.44265 of 2016

¶7

C.S.Chandra ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Avadi Taluk, Thirumalairajapuram, Avadi, Chennai-54. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take necessary action to measure the petitioner's landed property to the extent of 8742 sq.ft. at Shagunthala Street, Shoba Nagar, Thirumullaivoyil, Thiruvallur District, bearing Survey No.512/1 of Thirumullaivoyil Village Avadi Taluk, Thiruvallur District and allow her to live peaceful life based on the petitioner's representations dated 24.10.2016, 28.11.2016 to the 1st respondent and her application dated 30.11.2016 to the 2nd respondent.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take necessary action to measure the petitioner's landed property to the extent of 8742 sq.ft. at Shagunthala Street, Shoba Nagar, Thirumullaivoyil, Thiruvallur District, bearing Survey No.512/1 of Thirumullaivoyil Village Avadi Taluk, Thiruvallur District and allow her to live peaceful life based on the petitioner's representations dated 24.10.2016, 28.11.2016 to the 1st respondent and her application dated 30.11.2016 to the 2nd respondent.

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶17

Though a larger prayer has been sought for in the Writ Petition, at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 24.10.2016, 28.11.2016 to the 1st respondent and her application to the 2nd respondent dated 30.11.2016.

¶18

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.11.2016 which

¶19

¶20

was forwarded to him by the 1st respondent along with the application of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent dated 30.11.2016, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

27.01.2017

¶23

Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No tsi

¶24

¶25

The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

¶26

The Tahsildar, Avadi Taluk, Thirumalairajapuram, Avadi, Chennai-54.

¶27

¶28

B.RAJENDRAN, J. tsi

¶29

W.P.No.44265 of 2016

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

27.01.2017

C.S.Chandra v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S.Chandra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Nelson Vs The Tahsildar

S. Shanmugam, S/o. Sengoda Vs The District Collector

E.Adimoolam, Vs The Managing Director

S.Bharathkumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Suguna Vs The Commissioner

S.M.Girirajan, S/o.Marimuthu, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu