Dismissed

Rajamanickam v. the State Rep by

Madras HC23 Jan 2017WP(MD)/1007/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madrain Bench of Madras High Court granted a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for the grant of patta for specific properties at Mudalaipatti, passing orders on merits within twelve weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

Rajamanickam Vs the State Rep by — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.01.2017

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2017

Rajamanickam

: Petitioner

vs.

The State represented by The District Collector, Karur.

¶11

The Tahsildar Kulithalai, Karur District. : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.12.2016 and issue patta for the properties in Ayan Punjai S.F.No.106/1D Ac.1.04 cents and S.F.No.108/2B Ac.9.19 cents and also S.F.No.124/2A Ac.2.28 cents all situate at Mudalaipatti Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. V. Singan For Respondents : Mr. A. Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.12.2016 and issue patta for the properties in Ayan Punjai S.F.No.106/1D Ac.1.04 cents and S.F.No.108/2B Ac.9.19 cents and also S.F.No.124/2A Ac.2.28 cents all situate at Mudalaipatti Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District.

¶16

2.Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

3.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶18

4.It is stated by the petitioner that when he filed an earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.10347 of 2015 seeking for disposal of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his representation for grant of patta, he has wrongly quoted the Survey number as 'S.F.No.121/2A' instead of 'S.F.No.124/2A.'.

¶19

¶20

Therefore, he submitted that even though an order was passed by this Court directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, the respondents were not in a position to dispose of his representation, in view of wrong mentioning of survey number. Hence, it is now stated that since the petitioner has given a fresh representation by quoting the correct survey numbers of the land, the said representation may be directed to be considered at the earliest.

¶21

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner has sent the representation only on 05.12.2016 and it was only received by the respondents on 09.01.2017, I only direct the second respondent to consider the application/representation of the Petitioner, dated 05.12.2016 and pass orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, also after giving an opportunity of hearing to rival parties, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

6.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

¶26

¶27

The District Collector, Karur.

¶28

The Tahsildar Kulithalai, Karur District. +1cc to M/s. V.SINGAN Advocate in SR. nO.4039 +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR. NO.3552 vs js/bs/09.02.2017/2p-5c

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2017 23.01.2017

¶30

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

Rajamanickam v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamanickam v. the State Rep by

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

R.Sethuraja, Vs the Commissioner

G.Ilangumaran Vs the Commissioner

C.Durairaj Vs the Commissioner

D. Inbaraj Vs the Secretry to Govt.

R. Ravi Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

P.Karuppiah Vs the Secretary to Government