Dismissed

V.Sangeetha v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC16 Apr 2018WP(MD)/8156/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed for mandamus to direct authorities to sub-divide and mutate land based on a representation, the Madras High Court, without deciding merits, directed the second respondent to consider the representation within six weeks after giving due opportunity to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018 on merits within six weeks.

V.Sangeetha Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.8156 of 2018

¶7

V.Sangeetha ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Tahsildar Aranthangi Taluk Pudukkkottai District

¶10

2.The Firka Surveyor Poovattrakudi Taluk Office Aranthangi Pudukottai District ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sub divide the land in S.F.No.68/1 of its Sub Division 266/13 to an extent of 0.05 ares in Puvaimanagaram, Puvadrakudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District and mutate the same in the petitioner's name based on the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner that her representation dated 19.02.2018 seeking to sub-divide the land comprised in S.F.No.68/1 of its sub-division 266/13, measuring an extent of 0.05 Ares, of Puvaimanagaram, Puvadrakudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District and to mutate the same in her name, has not been considered by the respondents till date and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore, she has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

¶18

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 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 representation within a stipulated time.

¶19

In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of six 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 land.

¶20

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

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkkottai District.

¶27

2.The Firka Surveyor,

Poovattrakudi,

Taluk Office,

Aranthangi,

Pudukottai District.

+1cc to M/S.M.Suresh, Advocate SR.No. 61508

¶33

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 61614

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.8156 of 2018

¶35

16.04.2018

¶36

krk

¶37

JM/SV MMS/SAR 4/02.05.2018/2P/5C

¶38

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

V.Sangeetha v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sangeetha v. the Tahsildar

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

S.Amsha Vs the Inspector General of

A.Kanagaraj, Vs the Tamil Nadu State

K.Mutharasu Vs the District Collector

M.Vanthidevan, S/O.S.Marriappa Vs the District Collector

Vellai Vs the District Revenue Officer

S.Kumaran, Vs the District Collector