Disposed

T.Ramasamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC15 Sept 2020WP/7268/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the refusal to conduct independent enquiry and issue pattas for acquired land. Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider complaints and pass orders within 12 weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider petitioners' representations and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks after giving notice to all interested parties.

T.Ramasamy Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.7268 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.Ramasamy
2.Thundikaran
3.Munusamy
4.Palanivel
5.Venkatesan
6.Selvarasu ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Cuddalore District.
2. The District Adi-Dravida and
ribes Welfare Officer,
Cuddalore.
3. The Special Tahsildar
(Adi Dravida Welfare),
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1
& 2 to take action on the petition/complaint given to them on
27.01.2014, 26.02.2014 by conducting independent enquiry either
by themselves or through high officials without involving the 3 rd
respondent against whom the complaints were made, take action on
the same, take steps to issue patta to the petitioners, whose
names were identified way back in 2009 and issue patta to the
petitioners in the 5 acre and 75 cents of land acquired in
Ko.Kothanur Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, demark the land and
hand over the same to the petitioners who form part of 105
beneficiaries within a time frame.
For Petitioners : Ms.Raji for Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari,
Additional Government Pleader

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take action on the petition/ complaint dated 27.01.2014 and 26.02.2014 by conducting independent enquiry without involving the 3^rd respondent against whom the complaints were made and to take action on the same. Further, to take steps to issue patta to the petitioners, whose names were identified way back in 2009 and issue patta to the petitioners in the 5 acre and 75 cents of land acquired in Ko.Kothanur Village, Virudhachalam Taluk and demark the land and hand over the same to the petitioners who form part of 105 beneficiaries within a time frame.

¶10

2.When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, Ms.Raji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that instead of deciding the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, it would be suffice to direct the 2^nd respondent to decide the petitioners' complaints dated 27.01.2014 and 26.02.2014 and pass orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice to the 3^rd respondent.

¶11

3.Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioners' complaints and pass orders, after giving notice to all the interested parties.

¶12

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioners' representations dated 27.01.2014 and 26.02.2014 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

The District Collector,
Cuddalore District.
2. The District Adi-Dravida and
Tribes Welfare Officer,
Cuddalore.
3. The Special Tahsildar
(Adi Dravida Welfare),
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, Sr.No.30268
+1cc to Mr.S.Saravanakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.30182
W.P.No.7268 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
vg ii(co)
rr ii (30/09/2020)

¶20

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

T.Ramasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ramasamy 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

A. Chandarr, Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar-I

S.K.Kalidoss Chettiyar, Vs the Commissioner, Corporation

Munikrishnappa Vs the District Collector

C.Subramanian, Vs The Assistant Executive

S.Rathinam, Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Mahadeva Naicker Vs the Government of Tamilnadu