Disposed

Pakirisamy v. The District collector

Madras HC8 Dec 2020WP/21655/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court suo motu impleaded the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, as a respondent, directed the Special Tahsildar to forward the petitioner's land survey representation to the Tahsildar, and instructed the Tahsildar to pass orders within four months after fee payment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to forward the representation to the 3rd respondent within two weeks; directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders within four months after fee payment and notic

Pakirisamy Vs The District collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.21655 of 2017

Pakirisamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶10

District Collector Office, Cuddalore.

¶11

2.The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

4.Dayalan

5.Marry

6.Samynathan

7.Jayaraman

8.Balu

9.Anthonysamy 10.Kumar

¶19

11.Vijayakanth

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

(R3 – suo motu impleaded vide order dated 08.12.2020 in W.P.No.21655 of 2017; R4 to R11 – impleaded vide order dated 08.12.2020 made in W.M.P.Nos.27310 to 27312, 30234 to 30238 of 2017)

¶22

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2017.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Janakiraman for M/s.A.Sankar For Respondents: Ms.A.Madhumathi,

¶24

Special Government Pleader (R3)

¶25

Mr.M.Elumalai, Additional Government Pleader (R1 & R2)

¶26

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

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 07.03.2017.

¶29

2.Mr.B.Janakiraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given his representation to the respondents as early as on 07.03.2017 for surveying his land, however, the respondents have not passed any order so far.

¶30

3.Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that so far as the surveying of the lands is concerned, the petitioner should only approach the regular Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District and not the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. The petitioner has not made the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District as a respondent in the Writ Petition.

¶31

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District may be impleaded suo motu and liberty may be given to the petitioner to give fresh representation to the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District and a direction may also be given to the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District to consider the petitioner's representation. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would pay the necessary fees for surveying the land.

¶32

5.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 2, I suo motu implead the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, as the 3^rd respondent in the Writ Petition.

¶33

6.Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the newly impleaded 3^rd respondent submitted that the 2^nd respondent viz., the Special Tahsildar (ADW), may be directed to forward the representation of the petitioner dated 07.03.2017 to the 3^rd respondent viz., the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District and a direction may also be given to the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the representation within a time frame.

¶34

7.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also 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 forward the representation dated

¶35

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

¶36

07.03.2017 given by the petitioner, to the newly impleaded 3^rd respondent viz., the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same and on payment of the prescribed fee by the petitioner for surveying the land, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation from the 2^nd respondent.

¶37

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

¶38

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶39

True Copy

¶40

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

¶43

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Cuddalore.

¶44

2.The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶45

3.The Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶46

+1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 39806.

¶47

W.P.No.21655 of 2017

¶48

PM(CO) SP(06/01/2021)

¶49

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

Pakirisamy v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pakirisamy 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

The Principal Commissioner of Vs Mr.Palaniappan

Govindaraj Vs The Assistant Engineer PWD

K.G.Selvaranga Mudaliyar, Vs The Inspector General of

A.Fairoze Sharef Vs The District collector

M.Kavitha Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Panneerselvam Vs The District collector