Disposed

P.Nandakumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Nov 2020WP/7339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner's application for issuance of a fresh patta within eight weeks by giving notice to interested parties, without examining the merits of the case. The writ petition was subsequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application for a fresh patta within eight weeks, giving notice to interested parties.

P.Nandakumar Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.11.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.7339 of 2017

¶6

and W.M.P.No.8005 of 2017

¶7

P.Nandakumar ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Coimbatore District. 2. The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District. ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to issue a fresh patta in the name of the petitioner for his property in S.No.139/1, Angalakkurichi Village, Pollachi Taluk, measuring an extent of 416 sq.ft. For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For Respondents: Ms.A.Madhumathi, Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶8

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a fresh patta in the name of the petitioner for his property situated in S.No.139/1, Angalakkurichi Village, Pollachi Taluk, measuring an extent of 416 sq.ft.

¶9

2.Mr.E.J.Ayyappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given his representation to the 2^nd respondent as early as on 07.03.2017 for the issuance of patta, however, the 2^nd respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶10

3.Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 07.03.2017, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks.

¶11

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

¶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 petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 07.03.2017 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of eight 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
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Pollachi Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
+1cc to Mr.E.J.Ayyappan, Advocate, S.R.No.37100
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.37154
W.P.No.7339 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.8005 of 2017
BR(CO)
RV(08/12/2020)

¶15

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

P.Nandakumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Nandakumar 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.Palanisamy Vs The District Collector

A.C.Sivakumar, Vs The Chairman, (Superintending

T. Thangapushpam Vs The Tahsildar

jeevanantham Vs The Tahsildhar

B.Dhakshinamoorthy, Vs The District Collector

C.Ramakrishnan Vs The President