Dismissed

M.Marimuthu v. The District Collector

Madras HC25 Nov 2019WP(MD)/17015/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a father seeking directives under the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act. The Court addressed property disputes between a father and his son, directing both parties to mutually vacate and hand over possession of their respective premises by a specific date and permitting revenue authorities to is

What did the court decide?

Directing both parties to vacate premises on or before 15.04.2010 and holding that the petitioner's objections did not bar issuance of patta to the 4th respondent.

M.Marimuthu Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.17015 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.11.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2019

¶7

M.Marimuthu ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police,

¶11

Madurai.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, (L&O), Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai.

¶13

4.M.Narendran ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1^st to 3^rd respondents to initiate legal action as per Rule 20 and 21 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 based on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.07.2019 and consequently direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to provide adequate protection to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, G.A.(Crl. Side) for R1 to 3 Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for R4

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1^st to 3^rd respondents to initiate legal action as per Rule 20 and 21 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 based on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation of the petitioner dated 10.07.2019 and consequently

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.17015 of 2019

¶21

direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to provide adequate protection to the petitioner.

¶22

2.The petitioner and the 4^th respondent are father and son. They have disputes over the property, which was settled by the petitioner in favour of the 4^th respondent and the other property are owned by the petitioner. Now, the 4^th respondent is residing in the house owned by the petitioner herein. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the house, which was originally settled in favour of the 4^th respondent by the petitioner. Now, both have filed affidavits before this Court stating that the petitioner undertakes to vacate the premises and handover the possession of the house situated at Door No.1/327-4-1, Semparuthi Street, V.O.C.Nagar, 2^nd Main Road, Opposite to Yadhava Men's College, Madurai – 14 on or before 15.04.2020. The 4^th respondent also filed affidavit stating that he undertakes to vacate the premises and handover the possession of the house situated at Door No.5/330, V.O.C. 2^nd Street, Thasildar Nagar, Anna Nagar, Madurai – 20. on or before 15.04.2020. The 4^th respondent initially agreed to vacate the premises on or before 15.0-4.2010. After seeing filed by his father viz., the petitioner, he changed his mind and corrected as 15.04.2020.

¶23

3.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent are directed to vacate and hand over the possession of their respective premises as stated above on or before 15.04.2010. On perusal of the records, the father viz., the petitioner herein issued notice to the revenue authorities thereby raised objections to issue patta in respect of the property, which has already been settled in favour of the 4^th respondent herein.

¶24

4.In view of the above settlement between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, the petitioner has no objection to mutate the revenue records in favour of the 4^th respondent in respect of the property settled in favour of the 4^th respondent herein. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner have no barring over the revenue authorities to consider the request of the 4^th respondent to issue patta in respect of the property, which was settled in his favour by the petitioner herein.

¶25

5.With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.17015 of 2019

¶32

Arul

¶33

To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, (L&O), Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.M. THIRUNAVUKKARASU, Advocate ( SR-101179[F] dated 26/11/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.C.M. ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-101345[F] dated 26/11/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2019 25.11.2019 VB(19.12.2019) 3P 6C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

M.Marimuthu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Marimuthu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanmugam Chettiyar Vs Lakshmanan Chettiyar

Gomathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Syed Salami, Vs the Inspector of Police

Akilandam Vs Aparna

A. Edmund Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukrishnan, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of