Dismissed

Jabarullah v. the Thasildar

Madras HC18 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7209/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a consent-based writ petition, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's pending online application for a separate Patta via sub-division of land within eight weeks, providing notice to interested parties. Merits were not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the online application dated 29.06.2017 on merits and act in accordance with law within eight weeks.

Jabarullah Vs the Thasildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.7209 of 2018

Jabarullah

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Tahsildar, Office of the Thasildar,

¶8

Melur Taluk,

¶9

Madurai District.

¶10

The Taluk Surveyor, Office of the Taluk Surveyor, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to survey the land and issue a separate Patta by sub dividing the land to the petitioner on his application through online vide Citizen Account No.(CAN) 0332413044429, dated 29.06.2017, Application No.2017/0105/24/033142, dated 29.06.2017.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kumaradesigan For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner's online application dated 29.06.2017, seeking issuance of separate patta in respect of the land in S.No.283/3 situated at Karungalakudi Sub Division, Chockkalingapuram Village, Kottampatti Limit, Madurai District, in his favour, has not been considered by the respondents till date and therefore, has filed the present writ petition.

¶16

3.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.

¶17

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

¶18

4.In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ

¶19

¶20

petition, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's online application dated 29.06.2017 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 made, after giving notice to the petitioner and any other persons, who may be interested in the subject property.

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Tahsildar,

¶28

Office of the Thasildar, Melur Taluk,

¶29

Madurai District.

¶30

The Taluk Surveyor, Office of the Taluk Surveyor, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.v.Selva, Advocate in SR. NO. 62037, +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR. NO.62175.

¶32

¶33

DS/KKR/SAR-1 :09/05.2018: 2P/5C

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.7209 of 2018

¶35

18.04.2018

¶36

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

Jabarullah v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabarullah v. the Thasildar

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

K.Iyyadurai, Vs the Executive Engineer

Kannimariyal, Vs the District Collector

S.Muthu, Vs the District Collector

A.Xavier, Vs the District Collector

S.Alagarsamy Vs the District Collector

T.Arumugam, S/O.Thirumal, Vs the District Collector