Disposed

Thimmarayappa v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Nov 2020WP/44630/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing revenue authorities to issue patta for specific land surveys. The court dismissed the petition by directing the concerned authority to pass orders on the merits of the pending representation within six weeks, noting the land was classified as 'River' in records.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 3rd respondent to pass orders on the merits of the representation dated 18.11.2016 within six weeks.

Thimmarayappa Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.11.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.44630 of 2016

¶6

Thimmarayappa ... Petitioner

¶7

v.
1. The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
4. TheTahsildar,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in Survey Nos. 4/1, 4/2 Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Sureka For Respondents : Ms. A. Madhumathi, Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 4/1 and 4/2 Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶11

Mr. N. Sureka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land for several decades and that he has been paying the B Memo charges also, hence, the the patta to be issued in his favour.

¶12

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

¶13

Ms. A. Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the in the revenue records, the land in Survey Nos. 4/1 and 4/2 are classified as “River” and therefore, no patta can be issued in favour of the petitioner. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is also defaulted in paying the B Memo charges to the authorities. The submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader are recorded.

¶14

Since the 3^rd respondent has not disposed of the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2016, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 3^rd respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 18.11.2016 given by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, taking into consideration the entries made in the revenue records, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
1. The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4. TheTahsildar,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
+1cc to Mr.C.Samivel, Advocae Sr.37994
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.38271
W.P.No.44630 of 2016

¶16

nrl[co] srg 07/12/2020

¶17

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

Thimmarayappa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thimmarayappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Bharat Petroleum Vs Inspector General of

S.Mitra Srikanth, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Tarway Botanicals Private Vs The Chairman

M.Srinivasan Vs The Inspector General of

Dr.Lakshminarayanan Vs the Estate Officer/Tiruvarur

N.Sarasu, F/60 Vs The Inspector General of