Allowed

M.Krishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC9 Nov 2020WP/14396/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction under Article 226 for the second respondent to consider an application for patta issuance. The High Court directed the respondent to decide the application on merits within six weeks without adjudicating on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.07.2016 and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

M.Krishnan Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.11.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.14396 of 2017

M.Krishnan

...Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Collectorate, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Pallavaram Taluk Office, Chrompettai, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly, the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.07.2016 for issuance of patta based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Town Land & Tax Planning, Pallavaram on 09.06.2016 in S.No.341/51B spread over 5750 sq.mts at Jamin Pallavaram Village, Pallavaram, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition directing the respondents, particularly, the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.07.2016 for issuance of patta based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Town Land & Tax Planning, Pallavaram on 09.06.2016 in S.No.341/51B spread over 5750 sq.mts at Jamin Pallavaram Village, Pallavaram, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶14

2.Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has given his application as early as on 11.07.2016 for the issuance of patta, the 2^nd respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶15

3.Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent

¶16

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

¶17

may be directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.07.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks.

¶18

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.07.2016 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Pallavaram Taluk Office,
Chrompettai, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.P.Vijendran, Advocate, S.R.No.36244
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.36512

¶21

W.P.No.14396 of 2017

¶22

UM(CO) RV(10/12/2020)

¶23

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

M.Krishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishnan 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

A.C.Rafeek Vs the Corporation of Chennai

D.Raja Vs the District Collector

K.Revathy, Vs The Sub-Registrar

P.Sasikala Vs The Chairman

S.Meena Vs The Executive Engineer

M/s.J.L.Infrastructures Pvt. Lt Vs The District Revenue Officer