Disposed

Manesseh v. the District Collector

Madras HC24 Aug 2020WP/2124/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the District Collector and Tahsildar to dispose of a representation for issuing a patta. The High Court directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on merits within twelve weeks without examining the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an order on merits within twelve weeks.

Manesseh Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.08.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.2124 of 2014

¶6

Manesseh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
2. The Tahsildar,
Maduranthagam Tahsildar Office,
Maduranthagam,
Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2013 and give patta to the petitioner.

¶8

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2013 and issue patta to him.

¶10

2.It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of his application dated 19.12.2013 for issuance of patta in his favour, the 2^nd respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶11

3.Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2013 and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks.

¶12

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

¶13

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, 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 19.12.2013 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
2. The Tahsildar,
Maduranthagam Tahsildar Office,
Maduranthagam,
Kanchipuram District.
+1cc to Government Pleader in Sr.No.27764

¶16

W.P.No.2124 of 2014

¶17

nrl (co) rr ii (03/09/2020)

¶18

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

Manesseh v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manesseh 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

Ramadoss, Vs the Collector of Cuddalore

Dhandapani Vs the Block Development Officer

N.N.Malarkode Vs The Registrar of Coop.

Mr.K.Stalin Vs the District Collector

C.Munusamy Vs the District Revenue Officer

K.Rathinasabapathy Vs Mr.N.Palaniappan