Dismissed

S.Natarajan v. The Distrct Collector

Madras HC22 Sept 2020WP/32554/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to revise patta entries. It held that the authority had already considered and rejected the representation, leaving the petitioner with statutory remedies under section 12 of the Patta Passbook Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; alternative remedy under section 12 of the Patta Passbook Act remains open.

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.32554 of 2016

¶6

S. Natarajan ...Petitioner vs

¶7

The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Tiruppur District.

¶8

The Tahsildar, Madathukulam, Tiruppur District. 3. Thangavel [ R3 – Impleaded as per court order dated 22.09.2020 in W.M.P.No. 31800/2016.in W.P No. 32554/2016 ] ...Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.07.2016 for grant of patta by incorporating the name of the petitioner in S.No.341/A1B at Sarkar Kannadipudur Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District, within the stipulated time.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Umapathi For Respondents : Mrs. K. Bhuvaneswari Additional Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2016 for grant of patta by incorporating the name of the petitioner in S.No.341/A1B at Sarkar Kannadipudur Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District, within a time frame.

¶13

Mr. N. Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for the

¶14

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

¶15

petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent has erroneously included the petitioner's name in S.No.341/A1A instead of S.No.341/A1B, therefore, the 2^nd respondent should be directed to rectify the mistake committed by him.

¶16

Mrs. K. Bhuvaneswari, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2016 has already been considered by the 2^nd respondent as early as on 01.11.2016 and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present Writ Petition.

¶17

The 2^nd respondent has also filed a counter wherein he has stated that the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected on 01.11.2016.

¶18

In view of the averments stated in the counter affidavit and also the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, since the 2^nd respondent had already considered the petitioner's representation by rejecting the same, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the issuance of patta as per the provisions of section 12 of the Patta Passbook Act. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

¶24

The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Tiruppur District.

¶25

The Tahsildar, Madathukulam, Tiruppur District.

¶26

+1cc to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 31138

¶27

W.P.No.32554 of 2016

¶28

AJS(CO) RN(20/10/2020)

¶29

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

S.Natarajan v. The Distrct Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Natarajan v. The Distrct 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

M/S.Anush Infrastructure Pvt.L Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.K.Venkatachalam(Deceased) Vs The Commissioner (Land

C.Venkata Reddy Vs The Sub Registrar

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector

G.Subramanian Vs The Collector

J.Lalithamani, Vs The Regional Transport