Dismissed

M. Muniyandi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Apr 2018WP(MD)/10095/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's application dated 25.05.2015 for correcting revenue entries and issuing a joint Patta within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 25.05.2015 on merits and take further action within eight weeks.

M. Muniyandi, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.04.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.10095 of 2018

¶7

M.Muniyandi ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

¶12

4.The Thasilthar Sivagiri Taluk Tirunelveli District ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to correct the revenue entry and also issue joint Patta in favour of myself and my family members by considering the application of the petitioner, dated 25.05.2015.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Sankarakumarakuruparan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand

¶16

Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents.

¶19

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶20

It is the grievance of the petitioner that his application dated 25.05.2015 seeking to correct the revenue entry and also issue a joint Patta in his favour and his family members, has not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered by the respondents till date and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶21

¶22

This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to

¶23

the merits of the application made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever an application of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or the other. Non-consideration of the same would amount to dereliction of ordinary duties of their office and as such, this Court would be justified in invoking its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the petitioner's application within a stipulated time.

¶24

In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 25.05.2015 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such an exercise shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the persons who may be interested in the subject matter.

¶25

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(W)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶32

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli,

¶33

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶34

4.The Thasilthar, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.10095 of 2018

¶36

28.04.2018

¶37

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

¶38

KRK

¶39

¶40

PS/JC/SAR 3/22.05.2018/2P/5C

¶41

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

M. Muniyandi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Muniyandi, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Mahesh Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Felix, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Ganesan, S/O.Chinnahambi, Vs the Joint Director of

Alagammal Vs the District Collector

A.Sivakumar, Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Nagamanickam Vs the District Superintendent