Allowed

L.Rajendiran, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC16 Sept 2020WP/27041/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition for a mandate under Article 226 for issuance of joint patta, the Supreme Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within eight weeks after ascertaining interested persons.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 22.11.2018, ascertain interested persons, issue notices if any, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

L.Rajendiran, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.09.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH WP No.27041 of 2019

L.Rajendiran

..Petitioner

Vs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Revenue Divisional Office, Tambaram.

¶6

The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk Office Building, Tambaram. ..Respondents Prayer:- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2018 for issuance of patta for the land measuring 0.52 Acres in Survey No.22/7 at Thiruvancheri Village, Tambaram Taluk, within a time frame as stipulated by this Court.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.E.Balamurugan Special Government Pleader ORDER

¶8

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 22.11.2018, wherein, the petitioner has sought for issuance of joint patta with respect to the subject property.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject property. The petitioner made a representation to the 1^st respondent on 22.11.2018 requesting for the survey of the property and for the issuance of a Joint patta in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation was not considered till date and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed before this seeking for appropriate directions.

¶10

1/2

¶11

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

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶13

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that similar orders have been passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the similarly placed persons, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 22.11.2018 and act upon the same, strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 2^nd respondent before conducting the enquiry and passing orders, shall ascertain whether there are any other interested persons and if so, issue notice to them also before conducting the enquiry and passing final orders. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the 2^nd respondent along with copy of the representation dated 22.11.2018 accompanied by all relevant documents and also a copy of this order.

¶14

This writ petition is disposed of with the above
directions. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
rka
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram Revenue Divisional Office,
Tambaram.
2. The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluk Office Building,
Tambaram.
+1 cc to Mr.J.Ramesh Advocte sr30450
WP No.27041 of 2019
aa07/10/2020
2/2

¶15

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

L.Rajendiran, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Rajendiran, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Rajendran, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s.E.I.D.Parry(India)Ltd Vs TamilNadu Electricity Generation

N.Yazhini Vs The Pondicherry University

K.Venkatesh Vs Jothi Nirmalasamy

G.Anthony Vs The District Collector

R.Amsa Vs The Competent Authority and