Disposed

G.Rama Reddy, v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC20 Feb 2018WP/3681/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeking mandamus for a survey and boundary marking of petitioner's property was disposed of. The High Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the application on merits within eight weeks after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the application dated 29.06.2017 and pass orders on merits after hearing parties within eight weeks.

G.Rama Reddy, Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.3681 of 2018

¶6

G.Rama Reddy
Son of Kuppalli Reddy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar
Hosur - 635 109
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Revenue Inspector
Near Lakshmi Devi Theatre
Rayakottai Salai, Hosur - 635 109.
3.The Village Administrative Officer (VAO)
Chennathur North, Rayakottai Salai,
Hosur - 635 109. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to initiate action on the petitioner's application dated 29.06.2017 by deputing a surveyor to measure the petitioner's property at Chennathur Village and mark the boundaries. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.B.Anandan Government Advocate

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Mr.B.Anandan, learned Government Advocate 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

Heard both sides.

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the first respondent to initiate action on the petitioners application dated 29.06.2017, wherein and whereby, he sought for survey of

¶12

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

¶13

the property at Chennathur Village and mark the boundaries.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the said representation has not been considered so far. This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the first respondent to consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, only by directing the first respondent to consider the application dated 29.06.2017 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and the rival claimants, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The Tahsildar
Hosur - 635 109
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Revenue Inspector
Near Lakshmi Devi Theatre
Rayakottai Salai, Hosur - 635 109.
3.The Village Administrative Officer (VAO)
Chennathur North, Rayakottai Salai,
Hosur - 635 109.
+1cc to Mr.S.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.13366
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.13248
W.P.No.3681 of 2018
PPA(CO)
RRK(05/03/2018)

¶16

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

G.Rama Reddy, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rama Reddy, v. The Tahsildar

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

D..Paranthaman, Vs The Chairman

The Divisional Controller Vs The Motor Vehicle Officer

B.Senthilvel Vs The District Collector

S.Anwar Basha, Vs The Chairman

M.Shanthi, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Karnan, Vs The Tashildar