Disposed

Valliammai v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC18 Jan 2017WP(MD)/727/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing government surveyors to fix land boundary based on a representation. Court disposed of petition at admission stage, directing respondents to consider the representation and pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2016 and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

Valliammai Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 18.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.727 of 2017

¶5

Valliammai ..Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶8

2.The Taluk Head Surveyor, Taluk Office, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶9

3.The Taluk Assistant Surveyor, Taluk Office, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. ..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 respondents 1 to 3 to survey and fix the boundary of the Petitioner's land situated in Survey numbers as mentioned in his affidavit, having an extent of 47 acres situated at Sepilanpatti Village, Perunkudi Panchayat, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner :M/s.S.Muthukumar For Respondents :Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the the respondents 1 to 3 to survey and fix the boundary of the Petitioner's land situated in Survey numbers as mentioned in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, having an extent of 47 acres situated at Sepilanpatti Village, Perunkudi Panchayat, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District based on the Petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation, dated 21.12.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

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

¶15

¶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

¶18

representation submitted by the Petitioner to survey and fix the boundary of the Petitioner's land situated in Survey numbers as mentioned in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, having an extent of 47 acres situated at Sepilanpatti Village, Perunkudi Panchayat, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, has not been considered so far.

¶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 respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 21.12.2016 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[Crl.side]

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶27

2.The Taluk Head Surveyor, Taluk Office, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Taluk Assistant Surveyor, Taluk Office, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. +1cc to Mr.S.Muthukumar,Advocate,SR.3201 +1cc to Special Government pleader,SR.3057

¶28

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

¶29

VSN

¶30

KK-RR-BS-01.02.17-2P-6C

¶31

W.P(MD)No.727 of 2017 18.01.2017

Valliammai v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valliammai 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

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

M.Mariasass, Vs the District Collector