Dismissed

K.Malairajan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21264/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 seeking a mandate for patta issuance by the District Collector, was disposed of by consent. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's 2018 representation, afford a hearing to interested parties, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, afford a hearing, and pass orders within six weeks.

K.Malairajan, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.10.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.21264 of 2018

K.Malairajan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Reform) (Melur Executive Magistrate), Y.Othakkadai,

¶10

Madurai District. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of MANDAMUS, directing the 1st respondent to issue Patta in favour of the petitioner herein based on his representation dated 08.10.2018 and grievance day representation dated 08.10.2018 and also earliest representation 03.07.2002, for the land comprising in Survey No.165pt to an extent 0.30 Cents and Survey No.166/2pt to an extent 0.42 Cents totally to an extent of 0.72 Cents, vide MRIV 94A/17.70 MDR dated 29.12.1980 situated at Kurinji Nagar, Tiruchunai Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, within a stipulated time limit.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Malathi For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiyagarajan,

¶13

Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

By consent, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

According to the petitioner, the property in Survey No.165pt to an extent of 0.30 Cents and Survey No.166/2pt to an extent of 0.42 Cents, in total 0.72 Cents, was allotted in favour of his father, namely, Kurinjian, by the Land Reforms Department, vide proceedings dated 29.12.1980, in MRIV 944 / 17 -70 / MDR and according to them, there is neither civil suit nor rival claim, whatsoever, pending in respect of the property in question. After https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the demise of his father, the petitioner is enjoying possession over the same. Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated

¶18

¶19

08.10.2018, to the first respondent seeking patta in his name, in respect of the aforesaid property and as the same is kept pending, without any action, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 08.10.2018, is disposed of, by the first respondent, as per law, within a stipulated time limit.

¶21

Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.10.2018 and pass appropriate orders, on its own merit and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all the other interested parties, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶28

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Reform) (Melur Executive Magistrate), Y.Othakkadai, Madurai District.

¶29

+1 CC To MR.K.MALATHI, Advocate SR. NO. 89881

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.21264 of 2018 11.10.2018

¶31

¶32

TR/SV/SAR-I(02.11.2018)2P 4C

¶33

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

K.Malairajan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Malairajan, 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.Sahul Hameed Vs the District Collector

Gunasekaran, Vs the District Collector

P. Hemalatha, Vs the Regional Transport

Tvl.Regent Creation Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

I Jayanthi, Vs the Governement of

Tvl. Anuj Trade Link Co., Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)