A writ petition seeking a mandatory direction to issue a Patta was dismissed. The court refrained from considering the request due to pending revision proceedings by a third party, directing the lower authority to decide that pending matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2017 CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.(MD)No.10931 of 2017
Udayasuriyan
: Petitioner
-vs-
The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District. : Respondent
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue Patta for old Survey No.120/3 with corresponding New Survey No.493/2015 for an extent 1152 sq. feet situated at Devathur Village, Oddanchatram Talk, Dindigul District, within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganandam Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue Patta for old Survey No.120/3 with corresponding New Survey No.493/2015 for an extent 1152 sq. feet, situated at Devathur Village, Oddanchatram Talk, Dindigul District, within a time frame.
2.Heard Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3.Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the order in favour of the petitioner's vendor by name Radha. Challenging that order, the opposite party Kandasamy S/o.Karuppana Gounder has preferred a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul. Unless an order is passed in the revision, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered by the respondent. The intimation served on the petitioner by the Tahsildar, dated 20.06.2017 is produced for verification .
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Considering the above facts, this writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file writ petition afresh, if
2
warranted, after disposal of the revision.
5.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul is directed to dispose of the revision filed by one Kandasamy, S/o.Karuppana Gounder purely on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order copy. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul. 2.The Tashildar, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District. +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.62173
W.P.(MD)No.10931 of 2017 23.06.2017
ER KK/SKN RSK/SAR/13.07.2017/2P-4C/
Udayasuriyan
The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
