Disposed

N.Vijayasahar v. The commissioenr of Land Administration

Madras HC3 Sept 2020WP/10086/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a writ petition under Article 226, directed the second respondent (District Collector, Ranipet) to consider the petitioner's earlier representation regarding cultivation rights and patta issuance for 15 cents of poramboke land. The court ordered a decision within eight weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and take a decision within eight weeks.

N.Vijayasahar Vs The commissioenr of Land Administration — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 03.09.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.10086 of 2020

¶6

N.Vijayasahar, S/o.Nagaraj, No.183, Anna Nagar, Perumugai, Vellore 632 009.

¶7

.. Petitioner versus 1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 005. 2.The District Collector, Ranipet, Ranipet District. 3.The Tahsildar, Walajah, Walajah Taluk, Ranipet District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to cultivate 15 cents of poramboke land in Survey No.288 in Arapakkam Village, Ranipet District and also to issue assignment patta in the petitioner's name.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu For Respondents: Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, GA

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to cultivate the poramboke land by considering the representation made by the petitioner on 03.03.2020.

¶12

The case of the petitioner is that the subject property belongs to the Government and the petitioner has been cultivating the land for a very long time. The petitioner had made a representation to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to continue to cultivate the land and also for issuing an assignment patta. Since the representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶13

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

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

¶15

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03.03.2020 and take a decision strictly in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

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

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gsk
To
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Ranipet,
Ranipet District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Walajah, Walajah Taluk,
Ranipet District.
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 28995,289751
+1cc to Mr.S.T.varadharajulu , Advocate SR.No. 28900
W.P.No.10086 of 2020
sv co
A.SK(09/11/2020)

¶18

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

N.Vijayasahar v. The commissioenr of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Vijayasahar v. The commissioenr of Land Administration

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

G.S.Krishnan, Vs The Sub Registrar

M.R.Srinivasan Vs The Tahsildar

M/S.Mentor Infocomm India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Generation

U.Parameshwari Vs The commissioenr of Land Administration

G.Arumugam Vs The commissioenr of Land Administration

S.Albert Royen Vs The Inspector General of Registration