Petitioner sought mandamus for issuance of patta. Court granted two weeks for fresh application and directed the third respondent to decide on merits within 16 weeks before disposing of the petition.
Petitioner granted two weeks to file fresh application. Third respondent directed to decide on merits within sixteen weeks from submission of said application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.12.2020
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.38381 of 2016
K.Gowri ... Petitioner
Vs.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue a patta in favour of the petitioner pertaining to No.6/9, Pillayar Koil 2nd Street, Kalikundram, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113 comprised in Town Survey No.4/1, Old Survey No.80/Part, Kalikundram Village, Mylapore – Triplicane Taluk measuring an extent of 580 sq.ft based on the recommendation order issued by the 4th respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.E1.No.2149/2009 dated 22.03.2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramachandran
For Respondents : Ms.A.Madhumathi, Special Government Pleader
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to issue a patta in favour of the petitioner pertaining to No.6/9, Pillayar Koil 2nd Street, Kalikundram, Chennai – 600 113 comprised in Town Survey No.4/1, Old Survey No.80/Part, Kalikundram Village,
Mylapore – Triplicane Taluk measuring an extent of 580 sq.ft based on the recommendation order issued by the 4th respondent in proceedings dated 22.03.2010.
2.Mr.T.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, enjoying the same for several years and therefore, patta should be issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in occupation of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the land in question in T.S.No.4/1 has been classified as Government Poramboke in the revenue records.
3.The 3rd respondent filed a counter wherein it has been specifically stated in paragraph nos.4 & 6 that T.S.No.4/1 is a Government Poramboke and in the remarks column it has been mentioned that 52 residents are in occupation of the same. So far as T.S.No.4/2 is concerned, in the remarks column, it has been mentioned that Ishta Sithi Vinayagar Temple is situated.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not concerned about T.S.No.4/2 where the Temple is situated and the petitioner is concerned only about T.S.No.4/1 where she is residing by constructing a house for several years.
5.Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner is not claiming any patta in respect of T.S.No.4/2, in the case of the petitioner submitting a fresh application seeking for issuance of patta in respect of the land in T.S.No.4/1, the same would be considered by the 3rd respondent.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would give a fresh application seeking for issuance of patta in respect of the land in her occupation in T.S.No.4/1 within a period of two weeks with all the relevant documents to establish that the petitioner is in occupation and enjoyment of the land in question.
7.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I grant two weeks time for the petitioner to submit her application for issuance of patta in respect of the land in her occupation in T.S.No.4/1 and on receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of submission of the application.
8.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Chennai District, Chennai.
2. The Tahsildar,
Mylapore / Triplicane Taluk Office,
Chennai – 600 028.
3. The Tahsildar,
Velachery Taluk Office,
Velachery, Chennai – 600 042.
4. The Assistant Director,
Land Survey Record Department,
Chennai – 600 001.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.42624
W.P.No.38381 of 2016
(2/6)
SR-ii(CO)
rv(19/01/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the district collector to issue a patta based on a recommendation order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Gowri
The District Collector, Chennai District
The Tahsildar, Mylapore / Triplicane Taluk Office
The Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk Office
The Assistant Director, Land Survey Record Department
M.Duraismwamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
