Disposed

M.Mariasass, v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Jan 2017WP(MD)/721/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner urged the second respondent to consider a representation for a separate patta. Without adjudicating merits, the Court directed the respondent to decide the matter on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Second Respondent to consider Petitioner’s representation and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

M.Mariasass, Vs the District Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 18.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.721 of 2017

¶7

M.Mariadass ..Petitioner Vs

¶8

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Tirunelveli Taluk Office, Tirunelveli. ..Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 1.6.2015 and issue separate patta in the name of the Petitioner within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner :M/s.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation, dated 1.6.2015 and issue separate patta in the name of the Petitioner within the time limit stipulated by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

4.The grievance of the Petitioner is that the above said representation submitted by the Petitioner to issue separate patta for 44 cents, in his name in regard to his share in his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ father's property, measuring an total extent of 2 acres and 20 cents, situated in Kandiaperi Village, Tirunelveli Taluk, has not been considered so far.

¶18

¶19

5.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for and without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner, I only direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 1.6.2015 and pass orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, also by hearing other rival parties, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

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

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS II) /True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,

¶26

Tirunelveli.

¶27

2.The Tahsildar,

¶28

Tirunelveli Taluk Office, Tirunelveli.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.A.D.Ganesh Moorthy, Advocate SR.NO.2759 +1cc to special Government Pleader SR.No.3069

¶30

vsn

¶31

sm:RR-BS:SAR 2:31/01/2017:2P/5C

¶32

W.P(MD)No.721 of 2017 18.01.2017

¶33

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

M.Mariasass, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mariasass, v. the District Collector

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

V.Suresh Kumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Suresh Kumar, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.A. Lyiakikathali Vs the Commissioner

P.Selva Dhas, Vs the Airport Director and

S.Subburaj Vs the District Revenue Officer

Valliammai Vs the Tahsildar