Disposed

Kannusamy, v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Feb 2018WP/3015/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition for mandamus seeking individual Patta. It directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request, afford a hearing to interested persons, and pass orders on merits within eight weeks, without expressing a view on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request, pass orders on merits after hearing, and complete the exercise within eight weeks.

Kannusamy, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.3015 of 2018

¶6

Kannusamy
S/o.Late Duraisamy ... Petitioner
.vs.
1.The District Collector
Perambalur.
2.The Tahsildar
Perambalur Taluk Office
Perambalur District. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation
dated 30.10.2017 to issue individual Patta to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dharani
For Respondents : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶7

Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶8

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant individual Patta in respect of the property situated in S.Nos.170/4B and 170/5B at Keezhakarai Village. It is stated that a representation made to that effect on 14.07.2017 before the first respondent was referred to the second respondent for taking appropriate action and however, the second respondent has not taken any action so far. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the first respondent once again by the present representation dated 30.10.2017.

¶9

Heard both sides.

¶10

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

¶11

This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. However, as it is stated that the petitioner has already made a representation on 14.07.2017, and the same was forwarded to the second respondent, this writ petition is disposed of, only with a direction to the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the second respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The District Collector
Perambalur.
2.The Tahsildar
Perambalur Taluk Office
Perambalur District.
+1cc to Mr.T.Dharani, Advocate, S.R.No.10467
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.10946

¶13

W.P.No.3015 of 2018 KJ(CO) RRK(23/02/2018)

¶14

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

Kannusamy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannusamy, 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

Mrs. Komala Krishnamurthy, Vs the Inspector General

M.Govindhasamy, Vs The Sub Registrar -

M.Gokulsaun (Minor), Vs The District Collector

P.Bakthavatchalam, Vs The District Collector

K.Kuppan, Vs The Executive Engineer

Manickam, S/o.Dhanapal, Vs The District Collector