Dismissed

N.E.Prakasham v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC4 Jul 2017WP(MD)/12354/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the survey and measurement of his property, acting under Article 226, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass necessary orders within four weeks after hearing the parties.

N.E.Prakasham Vs the Tahsildar — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.07.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.12354 of 2017

¶7

N.E.Prakasham ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Devakottai Taluk,

¶10

Sivagangai District.

¶11

The Deputy Inspector of Surveyor Devakottai Taluk Office,

¶12

Devakottai Taluk,

¶13

Sivagangai District.

¶14

Kesavamani ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to survey and measure the property of the petitioner comprised in S.No.148/7 measuring 60.50 ares situated at Sirumaruthur Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District based on the representation of the petitioner dated 17.10.2016 within a reasonable time fixed by this Honble Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kumaraguru For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Kumar Addl. Govt. Pleader *****

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been, seeking to direct the respondents herein to survey and measure the property of the petitioner comprised in S.No.148/7 measuring 60.50 ares situated at Sirumaruthur Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District based on the representation of the petitioner dated 17.10.2016.

¶19

Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice for the respondents 1 & 2.

¶20

¶21

It is seen that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.9971 of 2014 seeking for the similar relief without adding the actual / competent authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor as party to the said writ petition and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition by duly incorporating the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor as the 2^nd respondent in it.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.10.2016 in consonance with the earlier order dated 05.09.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9971 of 2014 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent herein, necessary orders shall be passed thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation along with this order as well as the earlier order dated 05.09.2014 to the 2^nd respondent. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned is free to deal with the matter on its own merit as per law.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To:

¶27

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶28

The Deputy Inspector of Surveyor Devakottai Taluk Office, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶29

+1 cc to MR.V.S.Kumaraguru , Advocate in SR.No. 63280 +1 cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.63481

¶30

ar/gk

¶31

AE/JC/SAR2/06.07.2017/2P/5C

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.12354 of 2017 04.07.2017

N.E.Prakasham v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.E.Prakasham 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

R.Anbarasi Vs the District Collector

B.Jayalakshmi, Vs the Tahsildar

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

Y.Perinbam Vs the District Collector

Deepam Trust, Vs the Commissioner

N.Aarumugam, S/O.Nainar, Vs the District Collector