Disposed

Rajasekar v. The District Collector

Madras HC23 Oct 2019WP(MD)/22424/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the issuance of a new patta in the fifth respondent's name without notice. The court directed the Tahsildar to review the petitioner's representation objectively after affording notice and opportunity to the petitioner and fifth respondent within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2019 after giving notice and opportunity to petitioner and fifth respondent within 8 weeks.

Rajasekar Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22424 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.10.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶4

W.P(MD)No.22424 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.19214 of 2019

¶5

Rajasekar ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o the Revenue Divisional Office, Thirumangalam,Madurai District.

¶9

The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk,

¶10

Madurai District.

¶11

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam Sub Division, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶12

Saraswathi ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent herein to cancel the Patta No.3107 issued in favour of the fifth respondent for the property Survey Nos.110/6A1A, 110/6A1C situated at Kappalur, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, by restoring the patta bearing No.700 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2019 within time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ramanathan for Mr.R.Aravindan For Respondents : Mr.B.Bhagawathi Government Advocate for R.1 to R.4

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Mr.G.Ramanathan, representing Counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.B.Bhagawathi, learned Government, who accepts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P(MD)No.22424 of 2019

¶19

notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 (official respondents) are before this Court.

¶20

From the case file placed before this Court and from the submissions made by learned Counsel for writ petitioner, it comes to light that this writ petition can be disposed of by an order which is not adverse to the rights of the fifth respondent in any manner. Therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for writ petitioner and State Counsel, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶21

3. Subject matter of instant writ petition is 18 cents of land comprised in S.Nos.110/6A1A and 110/6A1C admeasuring 3 cents and 15 cents respectively totalling 18 cents in all in 10, Kappalur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District (hereinafter 'said lands' for brevity).

¶22

4. It is the case of writ petitioner that patta for said lands originally stood in the name of his grandfather Mayandi Thevar along with one Maya Thevar. The said patta as placed before this Court is as follows:

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

W.P(MD)No.22424 of 2019

¶26

5. It is the case of writ petitioner that the aforesaid patta being patta No.700 has subsequently been changed and fresh patta bearing No.3107 has been issued for said lands without notice to the petitioner. New patta ie., patta No.3107 with changed entries (as placed before this Court as part of case file) is as follows:

¶27

6. It is the stated position of writ petitioner that the aforesaid change in the entries in patta qua said lands have been made without notice to the writ petitioner.

¶28

7. Any change in the entries in the patta necessarily entitles prior notice to persons in whose names patta originally stood. In the instant case, it is the case of writ petitioner that after demise of his grandfather Mayandi Thevar, said lands devolved upon writ petitioner.

¶29

8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and without expressing any view on the claim of writ petitioner that the said lands devolved upon writ petitioner, the third respondent is directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2019 on its own merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice and reasonable opportunity to writ petitioner, fifth respondent, all concerned and dispose of the same. To be noted, as alluded supra, this order disposing of the writ petition is not adverse to the rights of the fifth respondent as mentioned supra. In this context, it is made clear that directing the third respondent to put inter alia fifth respondent on notice and give reasonable opportunity to fifth respondent before disposing of writ petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

3/4

¶31

W.P(MD)No.22424 of 2019

¶32

representation dated 18.07.2019 on its own merits and in accordance with law is a safety valve / safety mechanism qua rights of fifth respondent. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

9. Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar // True Copy //

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o the Revenue Divisional Office, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶40

3.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶41

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam Sub Division, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. +1 CC to Mr.R.ARAVINDAN, Advocate ( SR-93816[F] dated 23/10/2019 ) W.P(MD)No.22424 of 2019 23.10.2019

¶42

ssl MK (05.11.2019) 4P 6C

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

Rajasekar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasekar 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

S.Raju Vs the District Collector

M. Arockiyadoss Vs the District Collector

Kamalam @ Kamalam Mokkapandy Vs the District Collector

M. Vaiyalingam Vs the Commissioner

M.Thiagarajan Vs The District Collector

Akbar Ali Ambalam Vs the District Collector