Disposed

V.Suresh Kumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC11 Jan 2017WP(MD)/493/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns a writ petition filed for the issuance of a patta for a specific land extent. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, conduct an enquiry if necessary, and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, hear rival claimants if any (if any), and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy.

V.Suresh Kumar Vs the Revenue Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:11.01.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.493 of 2017

V.Suresh Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildhar, Tiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct enquiry in respect of the request made by the petitioner for issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of land, an extent of 2.46.0 Hectare situated in Survey No.29/1B at Veerakudi Village, Tiruchuli Taluk, Laying with Veerachozhan Sub-Registrar Office, Virudhunagar District, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, pursuant to his representation, dated 29.09.2016 and consequently mutate the patta in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable time period to be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Boopathipandian For Respondents : Mr. C.Selvaraj (Special Government Pleader)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶16

By consent of parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

3.The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents for issuance of patta in his name in respect of the property referred to in the Writ Petition. To that effect, he has already made a representation on 29.09.2016, which, according to the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has not been considered so far.

¶18

¶19

Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, I only direct the second respondent to consider the above representation of the petitioner and pass orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, also after hearing the rival claimants if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Tahsildhar, Tiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District. +One cc to Mr.M.Boothapandiyan, Advocate, SR.No.2834 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.2503 pm RL/5C/2P/PM/AM1/25.1.2017 W.P.(MD)No.493 of 2017 11.01.2017

¶22

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

V.Suresh Kumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Suresh Kumar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

S.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

R.Brindha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

The District Collector Vs P.Ragunanthkumar

V.Suresh Kumar, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.A. Lyiakikathali Vs the Commissioner

V. Prakathesvaran Vs the Regional Passport Officer