Disposed

C.Amutha v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2018WP/31898/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus for action against private respondents allegedly involved in fraud regarding land possession. It directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

C.Amutha Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.31898 of 2017

¶5

C.Amutha ... Petitioner

¶6

vs.
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Thasildar,
Arani Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Revenue Inspector,
Arani Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Arani,
Thiruvannamalai District.
6.Sagunthala
7.Manjula
8.Kumar
9.Murugan ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the 1 st to 3 rd respondents to take suitable action on 6 th
to 9 th respondents for their act of fraud and forgery done by
them and for having misled the Government Authority on
fabricating Patta and having obtained fraudulent possession
certificate in respect of Patta No.564 in Survey No.86/29B on
the Punchai land with a small shed situated at Vinnamangalam
Village, Aranni Taluk, Thiruvannamanali district.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sundararaj For Respondents : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, Additional Government Pleader for RR 1 to 5

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against the private respondent Nos.6 to 9 by contending that they have obtained Patta in respect of property situated at Survey No.86/29B at Vinnamangalam Village, Aranni Taluk, Thiruvannamanali District, which property, according to the petitioner belongs to her. Making such grievance, the petitioner has made a representation on 12.10.2017 to the official respondents.

¶11

2.This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the said allegation made by the petitioner as it is for the third respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders accordingly on merits in accordance with law. Since, this writ petition is disposed of without passing any adverse order against respondent Nos.6 to 9, notice to those respondents is dispense with.

¶12

3.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the representation of petitioner dated 12.10.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 9 as well as the other interested parties, if any. The third respondent shall pass order as stated supra within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶13

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶14

//True Copy//

¶15

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

gsi/vsi

¶17

¶18

1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶19

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

¶20

2.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Thasildar,
Arani Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Revenue Inspector,
Arani Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Arani,
Thiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.no.85125
+2cc to Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, Advocate sr.no.84376
W.P. No.31898 of 2017
sai(co)
nr 02/01/2019

¶21

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

C.Amutha v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Amutha 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. Ravikumar, Vs The Sub Registrar

T.Devi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Periyasamy Vs The Chairman cum Managing

S.Jayagantha Vs The Secretary to Government

Mageswari Vs The Branch Manager

Gk Abdul Rehman Vs the State of Tamilnadu