Allowed

K.Karnan, v. The Tashildar

Madras HC20 Feb 2018WP/3686/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondent to survey properties and fix boundary stones based on an unaddressed representation. The court, without expressing a view on merits, directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.06.2016 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks of the order's receipt.

K.Karnan, Vs The Tashildar — Property and Title | 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.3686 of 2018

¶6

K.Karnan S/o.K.P.Kandasamy .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. The Tashildar Rasipuram Namakkal District. ... Respondent

¶8

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass order on the petitioner's representation dated 08.06.2016 with regard to survey the petitioner's property and fix boundary stone in S.Nos.105/1A, 105/1B and 103/2 situated at Navalpatty Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District (formerly it was situated within Salem District Jurisdiction) with a stipulated time.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramasundaram For Respondent : Ms.Ramya Revathy Government Advocate

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Ms.Ramya Revathy, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondent to consider his representation dated 08.06.2016, wherein and whereby, he sought for survey of the property and fix boundary stone in S.Nos.105/1A, 105/1B and 103/2 situated at Navalpatty Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶14

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

¶15

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 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 respondent to consider the representation dated 08.06.2016 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 respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

-Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Tashildar
Rasipuram
Namakkal District.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Ramasundaram, Advocate Sr.No. 12959
W.P.No.3686 of 2018
NM(CO)
VS 05/03/2018

¶17

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

K.Karnan, v. The Tashildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Karnan, v. The Tashildar

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

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

G.Rama Reddy, Vs The Tahsildar

M.Shanthi, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu