Partly allowed

R.Thangamani v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC4 Mar 2019WP/6089/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, at this stage, directed the First Respondent (Tahsildar) to consider and pass orders on representations filed by petitioners regarding the transfer of patta following the death of their father, after a joint holding dispute with the Second Respondent.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing the First Respondent to consider the representation dated 15.02.2018 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks after hearing interested parties.

R.Thangamani Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.03.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.6089 of 2019

¶6

R.Thangamani
2. R.Radhakrishnan
3. R.Muthukrishnan
4. R.Jayaraman ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar
Sendurai Taluk
Sendurai, Ariyalur District.
2.Pichai Pillai @ Aravanan ...Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 15.02.2018 given by the petitioners.

¶8

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Gururaj
For Respondents: Mr.R.Govindasamy
Special Government Pleader
for R1
O R D E R

¶9

Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without affecting the interest of the second respondent, notice to the said respondent is dispensed with.

¶10

The petitioners seek for a mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 15.02.2018, wherein and whereby, they sought for transfer of patta in their name from the name of their father, subsequent to his death.

¶11

It is contended that during the lifetime of the petitioners' father, the patta stood in the name of their father as well as the second respondent jointly. Now, the petitioners

¶12

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

¶13

seek to replace their names in the place of their father's name along with the second respondent in the patta. For which purpose, they made the above representation.

¶14

This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, as it is for the first respondent to consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, only by directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 15.02.2018 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners, the second respondent and other interested parties, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
The Tahsildar
Sendurai Taluk
Sendurai
Ariyalur District.
+1cc to Mr.R.Gururaj, Advocate Sr.19910
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.20554
W.P.No.6089 of 2019
sr[co]
srg 27/03/2019

¶16

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

R.Thangamani v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Thangamani 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

Blue Diamond Sports Entertainment Vs Superintendent of Police

Jubbili Sports and Vs State rep by

M/s.Sri Sai Ganesh Industry Vs The Tamil Nadu Small

M.Chinnapaiyan Vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Rep. by

M.Tamilarasi Vs The District Collector

D.P.Veeramarthandan Vs The Commissioner