Allowed

S.Nagar, S/O.Subramania Nadar v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC27 Apr 2018WP(MD)/5546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench of the Madurai High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking survey of his landed property. The court held that while it avoided expressing views on the merits of the land representation, the respondents were duty-bound to consider it and issued a mandate to do so within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2018 and take further action within four weeks.

S.Nagar, S/O.Subramania Nadar Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.5546 of 2018

¶7

S.Nagar

¶8

: Petitioner

¶9

1.The Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk Nagercoil.

¶10

2.The District Surveyor, Survey Department, Nagercoil. : Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to survey and measure the property comprised in Survey Nos.142-7, 142-8. 142-4, 142-4A and 4B&142-5 situated at Theraikalpudur Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil Kanyakumari District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2018.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam, Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Mr. B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

3.It is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 10.01.2018 seeking for survey of his land has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not been considered by the respondents till date and therefore, has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

¶18

4.This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or other. Non consideration of the same would amount to dereliction of their ordinary duties of their office and as such this Court would be justified in invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.

¶19

5.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 representation dated 10.01.2018 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of four 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk Nagercoil.

¶26

2.The District Surveyor, Survey Department, Nagercoil.

¶27

+1cc to Mr. B.JAMEEL ARASU, Advocate in SR.No.64554

¶28

¶29

SB-AK/JC/SAR3/24/05/2018/2P/4C

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.5546 of 2018 27.04.2018

¶31

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

S.Nagar, S/O.Subramania Nadar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nagar, S/O.Subramania Nadar 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

M.Balakrishnan, Vs the Commissioner(Land Survey)

M.Suresh, S/O.Sundar Raj, Vs the Sub Registrar

S.Josphin Vanitha Rani, Vs the Joint Director of

A.Mahesh Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Felix, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

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