Disposed

M. Arockiyadoss v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Oct 2019WP(MD)/22354/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the Tahsildar (Third Respondent) to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation dated August 19, 2014, within eight weeks, accompanied by a direction to allow notice to interested parties if required.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to dispose of the representation dated 19.08.2014 within eight weeks, provided supporting documents.

M. Arockiyadoss Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22354 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.10.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.22354 of 2019

M.Arockiyadoss

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶8

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶9

Trichy District, Trichy.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvarambur Taluk Office, Trichy District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent herein to issue a patta in favour of petitioner's property comprised in Survey No.180 measuring 2 acres 28 cents situated in Arasangudi Village, Thiruvarambur Taluk, Trichy District covered by the registered Sale Deeds vide Doc.No.570 of 2004 dated 19.02.2004 and Doc.No.4341 of 2007, dated 13.06.2007 based on the petitioner's application dated 19.08.2014 and pass final orders on merit and in accordance with law within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Marimuthu For Respondents : Mr.K.MU.Muthu Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mr.N.Marimuthu, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶16

Mr.K.MU.Muthu, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶17

With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶18

4. Instant writ petition turns on a very narrow compass, as it is one seeking mandamus qua disposal of writ petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2014 wherein writ petitioner seeks patta pursuant to a decree in O.S.No.71 of 2006, on the file I Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Trichirappalli, as settled before the jurisdictional Lok Adalat vide Lok Adalat case No.372 of 2011. As https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P(MD)No.22354 of 2019

¶21

the representation was sent more than half a decade ago ie., on 19.08.2014, writ petitioner shall resend the representation along with all supporting documents along with a copy of this order within fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

5. Notwithstanding several averments/ grounds raised / contentions urged in the affidavit filed in support of instant writ petition, learned counsel for writ petitioner abridges the scope of the writ petition / prayer in instant writ petition and submits that it will suffice if the third respondent is directed to dispose of the aforementioned representation of the writ petitioner, dated 19.08.2014, details of which have been alluded to supra.

¶23

6. Learned State counsel submitted that the third respondent is the authority who shall consider the aforementioned representation dated 19.08.2014 made by the writ petitioner (page No.31 of the typed set of papers forming part of the case file).

¶24

7. The aforesaid representation dated 19.08.2014 shall be disposed of by the third respondent on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of writ petitioner re-sending the representation dated 19.08.2014 together with supporting documents along with a copy of this order.

¶25

8. It is made clear that in the course of the aforementioned representation being considered by the third respondent, if the rights of any other third party / parties or any other third party entity / entities is / are likely to be affected, the third respondent shall put on notice and give reasonable opportunity to such third party / parties or any other third party entity / entities, before disposing of the aforementioned writ petitioner's representation. Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter.

¶26

9. The proceeding / order of disposal of aforementioned representation shall be communicated by the office of the third respondent to the writ petitioner and others concerned under due acknowledgement within seven (7) working days from the completion of aforesaid exercise, ie., seven days from date of disposal.

¶27

Instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

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

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P(MD)No.22354 of 2019

¶35

SSL

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy District, Trichy. 3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvarambur Taluk Office, Trichy District. +1 CC to Mr.N.MARIMUTHU, Advocate ( SR-93750[F] dated 23/10/2019 ) +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-94045[F] dated 23/10/2019 )

¶38

W.P(MD)No.22354 of 2019 22.10.2019 VB(06.11.2019) 3P 6C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

M. Arockiyadoss v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Arockiyadoss 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

Ramathal, Vs the Zonal Deputy Thasildar

G.Saravanan, Vs Additional Chief Secretary

K. Surandhran Vs the Principal Secretary

S.Raju Vs the District Collector

Kamalam @ Kamalam Mokkapandy Vs the District Collector

Bazeer Vs the District Revenue Officer