Dismissed

Murugesh, v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Aug 2018WP/20882/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice for enquiry regarding patta transfer. The court directed the petitioner to appear and produce documents to complete the enquiry rather than quashing the notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before second respondent and produce material documents to complete the enquiry; writ petition disposed of.

Murugesh, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.08.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.20882 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.24523 and 24524 of 2018

¶6

Murugesh ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri 653 115.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Denkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.2144/2018/B3 dated 20.07.2018 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents:Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi,

¶10

Addl. Government Pleader for RR1 to 3

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

Challenging the proceedings issued by the second respondent, dated 20.07.2018, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

¶14

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after scrutinizing the documents produced by the petitioner and considering the records, patta in respect of the property at S.No.481/1 in Nagamangalam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, has been transferred from the name of Lakshmamma to the petitioner and hence, the impugned notice, seeking the presence of the petitioner for enquiry, issued by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the second respondent is illegal and against law.

¶15

The learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for respondents, submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the concerned authority and produce all the documents in support of his claim so as to enable the respondents to complete the enquiry.

¶16

Upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that the impugned notice came to be issued only to verify the genuineness of the documents of the petitioner by the respondents to complete the enquiry in respect of the patta in question.

¶17

Hence, the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent and produce all the material documents, so as to complete the enquiry which is sought to be conducted on the basis of the complaint preferred claiming illegal transfer of patta.

¶18

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gsk
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri 653 115.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Denkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
+ 1 cc to M/s. R. Jyaprakash, Advocate SR.56477
+ 1 cc to MR. Government Pleader Sr.57220
W.P.No.20882 of 2018
RGN(CO)
EU(25/09/2018 )

¶19

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

Murugesh, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesh, 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

G.Senthil Kumar,S/o.Gurusamy Vs The District Registrar, office

Mrs.Visranthamma Vs The Tahsildar

Dr.K.R.Chitra, Vs The District Collector

Mrs.U.Shyamala Vs the Tashildar

L.Rajendran, Vs The District Collector

E.Viswanathan Vs the Superintendent of Police