Allowed

M.S.Shanthi v. The Revenue Divisional

Madras HC8 Sept 2020WP/12113/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of an appeal filed by the petitioner regarding a mistake in property classification. The court directed the respondent to consider the appeal and pass orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the appeal filed on 05.03.2020 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

M.S.Shanthi Vs The Revenue Divisional — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 08.09.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

W.P.No.12113 of 2020

Mrs.M.S.Shanthi

..Petitioner

versus

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Tiruvallur District.

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner dated 05.03.2020.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Mani Gopi, GA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

On the consent given by either side, the main writ petition itself has been taken up for final hearing.

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.03.2020, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that the subject property originally belonged to one Periya Muniyammal, along with a larger extent of land and by virtue of a partition, the subject property was allotted to the grandmother of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that the property was settled in favour of the father of the petitioner and patta was also issued in his name. The father of the petitioner is said to have executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner through a registered settlement deed dated 27.01.2017, thereby, the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

¶18

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

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that when the process of UDR was undertaken, a mistake was committed by categorizing the subject property as Gramma Natham. When this came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the first respondent on 05.03.2020, along with all the documents. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mani Gopi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶21

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 first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.03.2020, strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the first respondent along with the copy of the appeal dated 05.03.2020 with all the relevant documents and also with the copy of this order.

¶22

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvallur District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Tiruvallur District.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Vijayakumar,Advocate Sr.No. 29339
+1 cc to the Government Pleader, in Sr.29235

¶23

W.P.No.12113 of 2020 nr(co) rv(24/9/2020)

¶24

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

M.S.Shanthi v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Shanthi v. The Revenue Divisional

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

Rajendiran Vs The District Collector

Bnt Connection Impex Ltd. Vs Inspector General

S.Srinivasan Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

Shanvi Cotton Mills Vs The Chairman

Dr.Subbha Somu Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Sadasivam Vs The District collector -CUm - Arbitrator