Disposed

G.Anthony v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Sept 2020WP/10323/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a writ petition filed by G. Anthony, directed the 3rd respondent (Tahsildar) to conduct a land survey in Maiyanur Village and fix boundaries within four weeks, action being necessary to address disputes regarding the petitioner's claim over 18 cents of property and interference by other parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the 3rd respondent (Tahsildar) to conduct the survey and fix boundaries within four weeks.

G.Anthony Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.09.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶4

WP No.10323 of 2020 and WMP No.12541 of 2020

¶5

G.Anthony ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Kallakurichi Town and Taluk.
2. The Sub Collector,
Revenue Division Office,
Kallakurichi Town and Taluk.
3. The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office,
Sankarapuram Town and Taluk.
4. The Taluk Land Surveyor,
Rishivandhiyam Firka, Tahsildar Office,
Sankarapuram Town and Taluk.
5. The Village Administrative Officer,
Village Administrative Office,
Maiyanur Village.
6. Velayudham
7. Adaikalam
8. Susairaj ..Respondents

¶6

Prayer:- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to measure the land comprised in S.No.109/2A1 situate in Maiyanur Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District by fixing the boundaries, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2020.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. P.Valliappan For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy Government Advocate

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act upon the

¶10

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

¶11

representation made by the petitioner on 06.03.2020 and to conduct the survey in the subject property and fix the boundaries.

¶12

The case of the petitioner is that he became the owner of a larger extent of property measuring 1.14 acres by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 01.02.1973. Insofar as the present writ petition is concerned, it confines itself to an extent of only 18 cents, which is the subject matter of dispute.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 6 to 8 who do not have any right over the subject property were attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 06.03.2020 seeking for conducting a survey in the subject property and to fix the boundaries. Since the same was not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶14

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, learned special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶15

The respondents 6 to 8 have been served with notice and they do not appear either in person or through counsel. Their names are also printed in the cause-list.

¶16

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and limited relief sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 06.03.2020, strictly in accordance with law and take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 3^rd respondent shall conduct the survey based on the title documents of the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 8. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the 3^rd respondent along with copy of the representation dated 06.03.2020 accompanied by all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order.

¶17

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

rka
To
1. The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Kallakurichi Town and Taluk.
2. The Sub Collector,
Revenue Division Office,
Kallakurichi Town and Taluk.
3. The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office,
Sankarapuram Town and Taluk.
4. The Taluk Land Surveyor,
Rishivandhiyam Firka, Tahsildar Office,
Sankarapuram Town and Taluk.
5. The Village Administrative Officer,
Village Administrative Office,
Maiyanur Village.
+1 CC to Mr.P. Valliappan, Advocate sr 30276.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 30413
WP No.10323 of 2020
GJ(CO)
SP(15/10/2020)

¶24

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

G.Anthony v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Anthony 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

Rajendran, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s.E.I.D.Parry(India)Ltd Vs TamilNadu Electricity Generation

N.Yazhini Vs The Pondicherry University

L.Rajendiran, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

K.Venkatesh Vs Jothi Nirmalasamy

R.Amsa Vs The Competent Authority and