Remanded

Venkatesappa v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2018WP/32347/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking cancellation of patta issued to the fifth respondent and issuance of a fresh patta to the petitioners in respect of Survey No.77/1. The court dispensed with notice as the pending appeal before the second respondent would not prejudice interests. The second respondent was directed to decide the pending appeal on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the pending appeal and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

Venkatesappa 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 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.32347 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.37550 of 2018
1. Venketesappa
2. Aluvelamma
3. Prabhavathi
4. Munichandran
5. Raniamma
6. Gayathri ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Krishnagiri
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Soolagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
5. Chandrammal
6. R.Aruna @ Amaravathi ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the patta in favour of the fifth respondent and also issue patta in favour of the petitioners in Survey No.77/1, an extent of 2 acres 80 cents in Seekanapalli

¶7

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

¶8

Village, Soolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District .

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Sureka

¶10

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the disputed property. But, now patta has been granted in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioners had already filed an appeal before the second respondent, District Revenue Officer to cancel the patta. But, the appeal was not disposed of so far. In the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to cancel the patta.

¶12

In view of the nature of the order that is going to be passed in the writ petition, which no way would prejudice the interest of the respondents 5 to 6, notice to them is dispensed with.

¶13

Even though the petitioner sought to cancel the patta, admittedly, now the petitioners had filed an appeal before the second respondent and the same is pending. Hence, it is suffice to direct the second respondent to consider the said appeal and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioners as well as the respondents 4 and 5 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

mrp

¶18

¶19

The District Collector, Krishnagiri

¶20

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

¶21

The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri.

¶22

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶23

The Tahsildar,
Soolagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
+1cc to Mr.C.Samivel, Advocate SR.No.84603
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.85470
W.P.No. 32347 of 2018
MG(CO)
GMY(31/01/2019)

¶24

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

Venkatesappa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesappa 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.Palani Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Subramani Vs The joint Registrar

K.suresh Vs The Project Director

K.Mathaiyan, Vs The District Collector

T.M.Subramaniayam and Co. Vs The Commissioner

R.Srinivasan, Vs The District Collector