Disposed

K.Rani, D/O.Rukhmani, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC13 Jun 2017WP(MD)/10958/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner of HR&CE to consider a representation dated 25.4.2017 concerning a land entry error. The Court, without examining merits, directed the Respondent to consider the representation on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation on merits and pass orders within eight weeks.

K.Rani, D/O.Rukhmani, Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 13.06.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10958 of 2017

K.Rani

..Petitioner

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the Petitioner's application/representation filed before the respondent herein, dated 25.4.2017 bearing P.R.No.5219, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.V.P.K.Gowtham

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the Petitioner's application/representation filed before the respondent herein, dated 25.4.2017 bearing P.R.No.5219, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

4.The case of the petitioner is that the land measuring an extent of 1800 sq.ft in T.S.Nos.2972/A and 2972/1B originally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ belongs to one Mr.Sadhasiva Thenkondar, who is none other than the grand-father of the Petitioner. As per the Conveyance Deed, dated

¶20

¶21

28.02.1935 and the 'Will', dated 12.6.1975, he became the absolute owner of the property. However, the property was wrongly entered in the Demand Collection Balance Register(DCB) of A/m.Ranganatha Perumal and Thenkondar Chethiram, by mistake. Hence, the Petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 25.4.2017 to rectify the mistake. Since no favourable order is passed, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

¶22

5.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 25.4.2017 on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders on the same, after giving notice to the Petitioner and other interested parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

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

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶30

+1 cc to Mr.B.Baskar , Advocate in SR.No. 59868 +1 cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.60183

¶31

vsn

¶32

AE/SV MMS/SAR2/20.06.2017/2P/4C

¶33

W.P(MD)No.10958 of 2017 13.06.2017

¶34

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

K.Rani, D/O.Rukhmani, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rani, D/O.Rukhmani, v. the Commissioner

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

Imtiaz Abdul Latif Vs The Inspector General of

Dr.a.Saminathan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

A.Rangasamy, Vs The Principal Secretary cum

M/S.Ashok Transport Vs the Managing Director

K.Nagarjan, S/O.Karuppaiah, Vs the Inspector General of

D.Gnanaiah @ Ezhilan, Vs the District Collector