Disposed

Arulnathan v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Feb 2018WP/34304/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by an Ex-serviceman seeking mandatory direction to measure and survey his assigned land. The Court directed him to submit a fresh representation to the jurisdictional Tahsildar and ordered the Tahsildar to conduct the survey within four weeks of receipt. The petition was disposed of with compliance posted later.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to give fresh representation to the jurisdictional Tahsildar within two weeks; upon receipt, the Tahsildar to measure the land within four weeks.

Arulnathan Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

W.P.No.34304 of 2013

Arulnathan

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶10

The Thasildhar, Villupuram. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to measure and survey the assigned property of the petitioner viz., the whole extent of S.No.373/25 – at Kakkanur Village, Villupuram taluk, as per the representation made by the petitioner on 09.11.2013.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.N.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.B.Anand Government Advovcate.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to measure and survey the land of the petitioner in Survey No.373/25 at Kakkanur Village in Villupuram Taluk, as per his representation dated 09.11.2013.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he was an Ex-serviceman and he retired from the Army in the year 2001, after serving more than 30 years. The further case of the petitioner is that the Government by its proceedings, dated 10.08.1966 has assigned one acre land in Survey No.373/25.

¶16

The petitioner would further state that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since there was no mutation in the Revenue Records, he was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.5176 of 2012. Pursuant to the order passed in that writ petition, the mutation in the Revenue Records had taken place. But, the representation made by the petitioner, dated 09.11.2013, for measuring the land was not

¶17

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

¶18

considered by the respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that after bifurcation, the petitioner's land comes under the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, Vikravandi. The learned Government Advocate submitted that if the petitioner gives a representation to the jurisdictional Tahsildar, it would be considered without any delay.

¶21

In the light of the above facts and the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Court directs the petitioner to give fresh representation to the Tahsildar, Vikravandi, within a period of two weeks by enclosing a copy of this order. On such receipt, the Tahsildar, Vikravandi is directed to measure the land of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from therefrom.

¶22

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Post on 19.03.2018 for reporting compliance. msrm dt.01/02/2018

¶24

This petition having been posted “for reporting compliance” on Monday the 19^th day of March 2018, in pursuance of the order dated 1/2/2018 and in the presence of Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate for the petition and of Mr.B.Anand, Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents this Court made the following order.

¶25

It is represented by the learned Government Advocate that as per the order of this court dated 01.02.2018 the Tahsildar, Vikravandi had conducted survey on the petitioner's land on 17.03.2018, in the presence of the petitioner and boundary stone was laid. The letter of the Tahsildar, Vikravandi, dated 17.3.2018 and the submission of the petitioner have been placed for perusal of this Court. The same is recorded.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Audit)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

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

¶30

To 1. The District Collector, To be substituted the order copy Villupuram District, already despatched on 08.2.2018 Villupuram.

¶31

The Thasildhar, Villupuram.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.N.SURESH, Advocate, S.R.No. 20870 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21405

¶33

W.P.No.34304 of 2013
EV(CO)
TR(07/02/2018)
sm:4.4.2018

¶34

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

Arulnathan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulnathan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Gopinath, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mr.Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs the Deputy Commissioner

R.Nallaiyan Vs the Tahsildar

Kaliamoorthy Vs the State of Tamilnadu

T.Nagammal, Vs the Commissioner

Sheik Kaleem, Vs the District Collector