Disposed

S.Manivel, v. The District Collector

Madras HC23 Sept 2020WP/12353/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct authorities to issue a patta in Survey No.294. Recognizing a 1989 Government Order banning land assignments in hilly areas, the court remanded the petition to the respondents to pass orders within four weeks. Note: Subject classification reflects standard land revenue legal context rather than pension.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.Manivel, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.12353 of 2016

¶6

S.Manivel ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri.

¶8

The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶10

The Tahsildar,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in Survey No.294 in Alaekotta Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Samivel For Respondents : Ms.A.Madhumathi, Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in Survey No.294 in Alaekotta Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶14

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he has given his representation, seeking for assignment of the land in question, as early as on 31.08.2015, however, the respondents have not passed any order so far.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been issued with 'B' memo and he has been paying the necessary charges as claimed by the respondents in the 'B' memo.

¶16

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

¶17

4.Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the land in question is situated in a hilly area and therefore, the respondents cannot assign the land in favour of the petitioner. The learned Special Government Pleader also relied upon a Government Order in G.O.No.1168 (Revenue Department) dated 25.07.1989 wherein the assignment of the lands in the hilly area has been banned.

¶18

5.When the Government had issued the said Government Order barring the authorities from assigning the lands situated in hilly areas, the claim made by the petitioner seeking for assignment of the land cannot be granted. In view of the Government Order dated 25.07.1989, the 4^th respondent could have rejected the petitioner's representation. Since the representation is pending for a long time, the 4^th respondent may pass necessary orders in the said representation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, taking into consideration the Government Order No.1168 dated 25.07.1989.

¶19

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 4. The Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. +1cc to Mr.C.Samivel, Advocate in SR.NO..31015 +1cc to the Government Pleader in SR.NO..31302 W.P.No.12353 of 2016 MR(CO) RV(15/10/2020)

¶20

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

S.Manivel, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S.Manivel, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector

G.Subramanian Vs The Collector

Munikrishnan, Vs The District Revenue Officer

G.Munusamy, Vs The District Collector

R.Venkatraman Vs The Inspector of General of