Disposed

K. Sankari v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Madras HC15 Feb 2018WP/3303/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed to restore the Petitioner's name in the Patta which was allegedly wrongly removed during record computerization. The Court directed lower Revenue officials to decide the matter on merits within twelve weeks, taking note of relevant communications from higher authorities.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents 1 and 2 to decide the Petitioner's representation on merits and restore the Patta within twelve weeks of the order.

K. Sankari Vs The Revenue Divisional officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.3303 of 2018

¶6

K.Sankari
W/o.Krishnan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Revenue Divisional Office
Spur Tank Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2.The Thasildhar
Guindy, Mambalam,
Velacherry Division
Tharamani
Chennai-600 113.
3.The Director
Central Land Survey Department
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.The District Collector
62, Rajaji Salai
Singaravelan Maligai
Chennai-600 001. ... Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the
respondents to comply with the letters of respondents 3 and 4
dated 06.11.2017 and 30.11.2017 and thereby, restore the
petitioner's name in the place as it was and also direct the
respondents 1 and 2 to restore the Patta in the name of the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon
For Respondents : Mr.K.T.Devendran
Additional Government Pleader

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Mr.K.T.Devendran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶10

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the letters of the respondents 3 and 4 dated 06.11.2017 and 30.11.2017 and thereby, restore the petitioner's name in the place as it was and also direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the Patta in the name of the petitioner.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that her name originally stood in the Patta, was wrongly removed during computerization of the records in the Revenue Department and therefore, it has to be restored. In support of her claim, the petitioner relied upon the proceedings of the respondents 3 and 4 dated 06.11.2017 and 30.11.2017.

¶12

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the request of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶13

It is seen that the petitioner made a representation on 20.10.2017 and based on such representation, the respondents 3 and 4 have also issued the communication on 06.11.2017 and 30.11.2017. Therefore, it is for the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, also by taking note of the communications issued by the respondents 3 and 4 as stated supra.

¶14

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2017 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, also by taking note of the communication issued by the respondents 3 and 4 as stated supra, after hearing the petitioner and other rival claimants, 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.

¶15

Sd/Deputy Registrar //True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Spur Tank Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶21

2.The Thasildhar
Guindy, Mambalam,
Velacherry Division
Tharamani
Chennai-600 113.
3.The Director
Central Land Survey Department
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.The District Collector
62, Rajaji Salai
Singaravelan Maligai
Chennai-600 001.
+1 cc to M/s.AR.Nixon Advocate sr 11586
+1 cc to Govt Pleader sr 2160
W.P.No.3303 of 2018
aa27/02/2018

¶22

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

K. Sankari v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sankari v. The Revenue Divisional officer

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

J.Krishnakumar, Vs The Commissioner

A.Senthil, Vs Inspector of Police

Ambayiram, Vs The Revenue Tahsildar

P.Poongothai, Vs The District Collector

Ajantha, Vs The District Collector

Venkataramanappa @ Vs The District Revenue Officer