Dismissed

M.Kannan v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Apr 2019WP/9928/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for the portioned respondents to consider his representation regarding resistance to construction on his purchased property. The court allowed him liberty to file a fresh representation and directed the officials to consider it and pass orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file fresh representation; respondents directed to consider it and pass orders on merits.

M.Kannan Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.04.2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.9928 of 2019

¶2

M.Kannan ... Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

1.The District Collector O/o the District Collectorate Ariyalur District Ariyalur

¶5

2.The Superintendent of Police O/o. The District Superintendent Police Ariyalur District Ariyalur

¶6

3.Shankar ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2017 and the same petition with reminder letter dated 17.12.2018 in accordance with law to secure the ends of justice.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasarao For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz for R1 & R2 Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2017 and the same petition with reminder letter dated in accordance with law.

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased a property in the survey No.362/3 along with two others by virtue of sale deed No.1567/2014. The petitioner was a timur among the village people on the ground that how the scheduled caste person can purchase the property in the mainstream of the village and how he can be permitted to construct a house.

¶12

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

¶13

When the petitioner entered into his property to remove the thatched house with intention to construct a new house, the 3^rd respondent along with other people protested against the petitioner and forcibly prevented the petitioner to enter into the property. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 17.12.2018, which was not considered. Hence, this petition.

¶14

3.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation to the respondents. On receipt of the same, the concerned official is hereby directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits in accordance with law.

¶15

4.With the above direction, this Writ Petition
stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS iii)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kas
To
1.The District Collector
O/o the District Collectorate
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur
2.The Superintendent of Police
O/o. The District Superintendent Police
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
+1cc to Mr .R.Srinivasarao , Advocate SR.No. 33142
W.P.No.9928 of 2019
A.SK(07/05/2019)

¶16

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

M.Kannan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kannan 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

Krishna Kumar Vs Victoria Shanmuga Priya

R.M.Senthil Kumar Vs Hemalatha

M/S. Sree Vari Corporation Rep Vs S. Chockalingam

C.Balasubramanian, Vs The District Collector

L.Madeswaran, M/a 48 Years, Vs C.a.Yuvaraaj

L.Madeswaran, Aged 48 Years, Vs Raajhammal, Aged 42 Years