Disposed

C.Ramachandran v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Jul 2019WP/10792/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the District Collector concerning patta issuance for specific lands within four weeks. Upon compliance, the respondent must consider the representation, hear parties, and pass orders within twelve weeks, maintaining the existing status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file fresh representation; respondents to consider it and pass orders within 12 weeks; status quo maintained.

C.Ramachandran Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.07.2019 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.10792 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

C.Ramachandran

..Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Ariyalur District.

¶7

2.The Tahsildhar, Jayamkondam, Ariyalur District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, T.Chozhankurichi, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from issuing patta to any person in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.64/1 measuring an extent of 2 Hectares and 18 ½ Ares and S.No.64/2 measuring an extent of 3 Hectares and 28 ½ Ares situated in T.Chozhankurichi Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.B.Anand

¶11

Government Advocate

¶12

Heard Mr.K.Balu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Anand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶13

2.This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from issuing patta to any person in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.64/1 measuring an extent of 2 Hectares and 18 ½ Ares and S.No.64/2 measuring an extent of 3 Hectares and 28 ½ Ares situated at T.Chozhankurichi Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶14

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

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.05.2010.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the first respondent is ready to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

¶17

In the light of the limited scope of prayer sought for in this writ petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the first respondent, by enclosing a copy of this order within a period of four weeks. On such compliance, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties, within a period of twelve weeks therefrom. During the pendency of the writ petition, the order of status quo granted by this Court on 19.05.2010, shall continue till the disposal of the fresh representation of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ms To

¶19

1.The District Collector, Ariyalur District. 2.The Tahsildhar, Jayamkondam, Ariyalur District.

¶20

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

¶21

3.The Village Administrative Officer,

¶22

T.Chozhankurichi, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.K.Balu, Advocate sr.61065

¶24

+1cc to Government Pleader sr.61953

¶25

W.P.No.10792 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶26

ks(co)
nr 18/09/2019

¶27

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

C.Ramachandran v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ramachandran 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

Chettinad Cement Corporation Vs the Principal Special

P.S.Vengu Vs State of Tamilnadu

Robson Vs the District Employment

P.G.Jayapathi, Correspondent Vs the Manager

Tmt.S.Rathinam Aged 45 Yrs, Vs the Secretary to Government

D.Kaliyaperumal Vs the District Collector