Disposed

T.Ravi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Nov 2019WP/28507/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing revenue authorities to consider his representation regarding a disputed land patta transfer. The court observed that the Tahsildar had already considered the representation and rejected it in favor of the petitioner to seek civil relief. Since the relief sought was already complied with by the Tahsildar's order, the writ petition wa

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs. Petitioner directed to work out remedy in civil forum.

T.Ravi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.11.2019 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Writ Petition No.28507 of 2019

T.Ravi

.. Petitioner

/versus/

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶7

Rep.by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Pochampalli,

¶8

Krishnagiri District.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

¶10

3.Mahendran

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 22.05.2019 within a time frame.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.D.Nalini

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.J.Purushothaman Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2

¶15

Mr.V.Ragavachari for R3

¶16

The prayer of the writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 22.05.2019.

¶17

Regarding the point to an extent of 3 cents of the land in S.No.380/8, later sub divided and presently in the name of Mahendran, the 4^th respondent herein is questioned by the petitioner herein based on title deed of the year 1980 and revenue records of the relevant period. In this connection, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to enquire into the improper transfer of patta in the name of the 3^rd respondent, alleging that his representation dated 22.05.2019 has not been considered by the respondents, the present writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the request of the petitioner seeking transfer of patta in his name in respect of Survey No.380/8 cancelling the existing entry and sub division was considered by the Tahsildar, Pochampalli and after perusing the revenue records, the petitioner was asked to produce documents in his favour. But the petitioner did not turn up for enquiry and produce documents to substantiate his representation.

¶19

Further in the enquiry, the Tahsildar has found that there is a dispute between the siblings and the family members of the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. The present representation is given without any documents and accordingly, the petitioner's representation was rejected. The petitioner was directed to work out his remedy before the appropriate civil forum. Since the relief sought for in this writ petition has been complied by virtue of order passed by the Tahsildar on 25.10.2019. Hence, nothing survives in this writ petition.

¶20

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. However, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy as pointed out by the Tahsildar as the case may be according to legal advise. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶23

// True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

rpl

¶26

¶27

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, State of Tamil Nadu, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

¶28

2.The Tahsildar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, SR.No.93908. +1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.94117.

¶30

W.P.No.28507 of 2019

¶31

CA (CO) CSR(17/12/2019)

T.Ravi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ravi v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Murugesh Vs The District Collector

A.Ibrahim Vs The Executive Officer

Subramania Gounder Vs The Chief Controlling

D.Suresh Kumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

P.Mohanavel Vs The District Forest Officer

Avc Education Committee, Vs All India Council