Disposed

Ganapathy v. State

Madras HC3 Aug 2020WP/18015/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to grant free patta for house shed and vacant land. The court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks, then disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd Respondent to consider representation dated 12.06.2013 and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

Ganapathy Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.08.2020 CORAM : The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶2

W.P.No.18015 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶3

Ganapathy

¶4

... Petitioner
v.
1. State Rep. By,
District Revenue Officer,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur.
2. Tahsildar,
Tiruttani Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
3. Indhumathy
4. J. Subosenan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 st and the
2 nd respondents to grant patta under free patta scheme to the
petitioner in respect of his small house shed and vacant land
situated at No.48, New No.60/6, Stewardpet, 1 st Lane, Tiruttani,
after expediting the patta issuing process in terms of the
petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2013.

¶5

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Ms. A. Mathumathi, Special Govt. Pleader - for R1 & R2 No Appearance – for R3 & R4 O R D E R

¶6

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant patta under free patta scheme to the petitioner in respect of petitioner's small house shed and vacant land situated at No.48, New No.60/6, Stewardpet, 1^st Lane, Tiruttani, after expediting the patta issuing process in terms of the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2013.

¶7

Page 1/2

¶8

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

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner though he has given his representation as early as on 12.06.2013, the respondents have not considered the same.

¶10

3.Ms.A.Mathumathi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the request made by the petitioner cannot be granted for the reason that the petitioner is seeking for free house site patta. However, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the 2^nd respondent would consider the petitioner's request and pass orders in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2013 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar Rj To 1. The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 2. Tahsildar, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District. +1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court Madras sr26120

¶13

W.P.No.18015 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶14

aa12/08/2020

¶15

Page 2/2

¶16

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

Ganapathy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapathy v. State

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

Sri Jaganatha Spinners Rep.by Vs 1.TAMILNADU Electricity

C.K.Sashikumar Vs the Sub Registrar

Ponnammal @ Settu, Vs the Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk

J.Vijayakumar Vs the District Registrar

V.Jeevan Vs the Sub Registrar

K.Ponnusamy Vs the District Collector