Disposed

N.Mahalingam v. The Tahsildhar

Madras HC5 Mar 2019WP/6248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildhar to issue patta for Survey No.751/7D1 based on an online application. The court did not decide the merits but directed the first respondent to consider the application and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's online application and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

N.Mahalingam Vs The Tahsildhar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.03.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.6248 of 2019

¶6

N.Mahalingam ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Tahsildhar Pochampalli Taluk Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar Pochampalli Taluk Pochampalli Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.751/7D1 situated at Mookkampatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District, based on the online application of the petitioner dated 15.11.2018 vide application No.2018/0103/31/086125 and a reminder dated 20.11.2018 forthwith.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents: Mr.E.Balamurugan Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶11

Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶12

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in his favour in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.751/7D1 situated at Mookkampatti Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District, based on the on-line application dated 15.11.2018 and reminder dated 20.11.2018.

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the request of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents so far.

¶15

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

¶16

This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the first respondent to consider and decide the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, only by directing the first respondent to consider the on-line application of the petitioner dated 15.11.2018 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and the other interested parties, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Co)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The Tahsildhar
Pochampalli Taluk
Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar
Pochampalli Taluk
Pochampalli
Krishnagiri District.
+1cc to Mr. C.Prabakaran, Advocate SR.No. 20572
+1 cc to Government Pleader SR.NO. 21496
W.P.No.6248 of 2019
A.SK(01/04/2019)

¶18

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

N.Mahalingam v. The Tahsildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Mahalingam v. The Tahsildhar

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

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

M.Tamilarasi Vs The District Collector

D.P.Veeramarthandan Vs The Commissioner

P.Packiam, Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Rajendran Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Friends Academy Vs The Commissioner of Police