Disposed

L.Balaji, v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Feb 2018WP/2576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed the District Collector and Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the alteration of his Patta and to issue an order within twelve weeks. The court declined to express a view on merits but mandated a hearing for all interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to consider representation dated 31.10.2016 and decide within 12 weeks after hearing all parties.

L.Balaji, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.02.2018 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶4

Writ Petition No.2576 of 2018

¶5

L.Balaji S/o.Mr.N.Lengaram .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs. 1. The District Collector "Singaravalar Maligai" Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 2. The Tahsildar Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk Spurtank Road, Chetpet Chennai-600 031. 3. Mrs.Nalini Vijaykumar W/o.Mr.Vijaykumar .. Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 31.10.2016 and further direct the 2nd respondent to cancel the said Patta issued in C.A.No.185/2010 dated 01.03.2010 in TR.No.2377/09-10 dated 26.02.2010 in R.S.No.406/518, Block No.25, Egmore Division, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arvindkumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Balamurugan

¶9

Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2. Since this writ petition is being disposed of, without affecting the interest of the third respondent, notice to the said respondent is dispensed with.

¶12

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 31.10.2016, wherein and whereby, he sought for cancellation of

¶13

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

¶14

Patta issued in favour of the third respondent.

¶15

It is contended by the petitioner that originally, the Patta granted in favour of the petitioner, is altered as Joint Patta, by including the name of the third respondent as well. According to the petitioner, such alteration was made without notice to the petitioner.

¶16

Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and decide the same, based on the representation made by the petitioner on 31.10.2016. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, only by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31.01.2016 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the third respondent and other interested persons, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The District Collector
"Singaravalar Maligai"
Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2.The Tahsildar
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk
Spurtank Road, Chetpet
Chennai-600 031.
+2cc to Mr.M.Arvind, Advocate, S.R.No.9217

¶18

+1cc to the Government Pleader High Court Madras, S.R.No.9700

¶19

W.P.No.2576 of 2018 GP(CO) RRK(23/02/2018)

¶20

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

L.Balaji, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Balaji, 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

Kaveriamma @ Kavamma Vs The Chairman (Tangedco)

M/s. Maruthi Construction Vs The Secretary

M.Kumar, Proprietor Vs The Commissioner

Mrs.G.Revathi, Vs The Revenue Divisional

C.P.Senthilkumar Vs The Principal Secretary to

M/s.Sri Ramana Scan Centre Vs The State of Tamil nadu