Disposed

R.Muthu v. the Special Tahsildar

Madras HC5 Jul 2019WP/15907/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Madras addressed a public interest writ petition seeking inclusion of the petitioner in a beneficiary list for alternative land acquired under a redevelopment project. Upon confirming that the petitioner's name had been added to the list, the Court directed the Special Tahsildar to issue the allotment order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Tahsildar to issue an allotment order within six weeks; the writ petition is closed.

R.Muthu Vs the Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶5

W.P.No.15907 of 2007 M.P.No.1 of 2007

¶6

R.Muthu ...Petitioner

¶7

vs 1. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Office, Aromatic Centre(MRL), Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 2. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Order No.Na.Ka.275/07/A (CPCL), dated 10.04.2007 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the beneficiaries list for alternative site issued by the 1^st respondent on 28.09.2005 and provide other benefits like building costs, shifting charges, compensation etc.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate.

¶11

The petitioner has filed a writ petition for issuance a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Order No.Na.Ka.275/07/A (CPCL), dated 10.04.2007 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the beneficiaries list for alternative site issued by the 1^st respondent on 28.09.2005 and provide other benefits like building costs, shifting charges, compensation etc.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned Government Advocate would submit that the first respondent/Special Tahsildar produced a letter dated 04.07.2019, wherein, the petitioner name is included in the beneficiary list.

¶14

In view of the above lines, the writ petition stands
closed. Since the petitioner name is included in the beneficiary
list, I am inclined to direct the first respondent/Special
Tahsildar to issue an allotment order within a period of six
weeks. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssb
To
1. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Office,
Aromatic Centre(MRL),
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
2. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District.
+1cc to Mr.M.Gnanasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.56309
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.57348
W.P.No.15907 of 2007
M.P.No.1 of 2007
NRL(CO)
CS/13/08/2019

¶15

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

R.Muthu v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthu v. the Special 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

G.Govindan Vs the Inspector of Poolice

Sri Annamalaiyar Teacher Vs the Director of Teacher

Mrs. Ferdouz Farooq Vs the Superintending Engineer

K.S.Jailaane Vs State of Tamilnadu

M.Ramesh Vs the Special Commissioner

As Per Order DT.26/09/2008 in Vs Union of India Rep by Its