Remanded

A.Sathiyabama v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Jan 2018WP/5857/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ jurisdiction, the petitioner sought a direction to the Tahsildar to change the patta based on submitted title documents. The Court observed that the earlier representation remained undischarged and directed the Third Respondent to consider the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Third Respondent to consider a fresh representation along with the earlier one and pass an appropriate order after an opportunity of hearing.

A.Sathiyabama Vs State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

MADRAS

Date : 06.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶7

W.P.No.5857 of 2014

¶8

K.Manju, represented by her Husband as Power Agent

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Secretary to Government, (Revenue) Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶12

The District Collector, Revenue Complex, Puducherry.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the third respondent to change the patta based on the strength of the documents submitted by the petitioner for establishing the title of the land and the required application filed on 21st April 2015 and reminder lastly filed on 7th December, 2015 in respect of lands comprising in R.S.No.224/29, Cadastre No.1089/1, Ward-O, Block No.4, Town Survey No,.14/31 to the extent of 00.10.15 (Hectares) or 10 Ares 15 cents at Murugambakkam Revenue village, Puducherry, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶16

¶17

3 For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh For Respondents: : Mr.A.Tamilvanan, GA (P)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the third respondent to change the patta based on the strength of the documents submitted by the petitioner for establishing the title of the land and the required application filed on 21st April 2015 and reminder lastly filed on 7th December, 2015 in respect of lands comprising in R.S.No.224/29, Cadastre No.1089/1, Ward-O, Block No.4, Town Survey No,.14/31 to the extent of 00.10.15 (Hectares) or 10 Ares 15 cents at Murugambakkm Revenue village, Puducherry, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶20

According to the petitioner, the above said property was originally belonging to one Ramakrishan, from whom, one Gopal Counder had purchased by way of sale deed as per French Notarial deed, dated 8.2.1960. The said Gopal Counder died intestate, leaving three male issues, viz., G.Kannaiyan @Arumugam, G.Subramanian and G.Pavadai, who had executed a partition deed on 26.09.2008 vide Document No.5283 of 2008 registered on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar Office, Puducherry. Thereafter, the petitioner has purchased

¶21

¶22

the property from the above said three individuals by way of three registered sale deeds respectively vide document Nos.3866/2015, dated 31.3.2015, 3869/2015, dated 31.3.2015 and 3870/2015, dated 31.03.2015 registered On the file of the Sub Registrar, Puducherry. After purchase, the petitioner has applied for change of patta on 21.4.2015 to the third respondent, followed by a reminder dated 30.6.2015. However, as there was no response, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that, after purchasing the property, he applied for change of patta in respect of the lands comprising in R.S.No.224/29, Cadastre No.1089/1, Ward-O, Block No.4, Town Survey No,.14/31 to the extent of 00.10.15 (Hectares) or 10 Ares 15 cents at Murugambakkm Revenue village, Puducherry by way of representation, dated 21.4.2015 to the third respondent and also sent reminders, however there was no response.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the representation made by the petitioner has not been disposed of by the third respondent, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation

R.SUBBIAH, J.

suk

along with a copy of the earlier representation, dated 21.4.2015 to the third respondent. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶29

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶30

suk

¶31

06.04.2016

¶32

To 1. The Secretary to Government, (Revenue) Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶33

The District Collector, Revenue Complex, Puducherry.

¶34

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry

¶35

W.P.No.5857 of 2016

A.Sathiyabama v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sathiyabama v. State of Tamilnadu

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

E.Mahalingam (59) Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Tamilnadu Agricultural Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Sundara Udayakumar Vs the District Collector

P.Subramani Vs the Commissioner of Police

Smt.S.Vasantha Vs the Chairman

S.Shyamala Vs Niranjan Mardi, IAS