Allowed

B.Jayalakshmi, v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC3 Jul 2017WP(MD)/12255/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court directed the Thasildar to consider the petitioner's representation for land measurement upon payment of fees, ensuring due hearing to interested parties within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2017 and take necessary action regarding land measurement within four weeks, subject to fee payment and due hearin

B.Jayalakshmi, Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.07.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶4

W.P(MD)No.12255 of 2017

B.Jayalakshmi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Thasildar, Vedasandur Taluk Office, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶9

2.Nagarajan

¶10

3.Parama Naidu .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to measure petitioner's lands with regard to Ayyalure Village S.No.1788/11 and 1788/15 situated at Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2017.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar

¶13

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to measure the petitioner's lands situate in Survey Nos.1788/11 and 1788/15, Ayyalure Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2017.

¶16

2.Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the first respondent. In view of the nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner, notice to the respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶17

3.By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for hearing at the stage of admission itself.

¶18

4.Heard both sides.

¶19

5.The petitioner made a representation dated 07.03.2017, to the first respondent for measuring her lands.

¶20

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

¶21

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶22

¶23

it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 07.03.2017, is disposed of by the first respondent as per law. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner undertakes to pay the necessary fees for measurement of the land through on line.

¶24

7.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.03.2017 and take necessary action, if necessary fee for measurement is paid by the petitioner and if found fit, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to all the interested parties including the respondents 2 and 3, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

8.The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶26

sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(Crl side)

¶28

/True copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The Thasildar, Vedasandur Taluk Office, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.G.Gomathisankar, Advocate,SR.63055 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.63330

¶33

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.12255 of 2017 03.07.2017

¶34

SMN

¶35

KK/SV/SAR1-10.07.2017-2P-4C

¶36

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

B.Jayalakshmi, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Jayalakshmi, v. the Tahsildar

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

Indrani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Annamalai, S/o.Pachaiappan, Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Vasu Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Anbarasi Vs the District Collector

Arayee, W/O.Ayyasamy, Vs the District Collector

Vellimalai, Vs the Tahsildar