The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed for a writ of mandamus regarding the inclusion of the petitioner's name in a patta. The court held that it could not examine the merits or the record of the order passed by the revenue officer and dismissed accordingly.
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 : 01.09.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.9066 of 2019
P.Ayinu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Collector,
Villupuram District.
2.Revenue Divisional Officer,
RDO Office, Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
3.Tasildar,
Vikravandi Taluk,
Villupuram District.
4.Revenue Inspector,
Vikravandi Taluk Office,
Vikravandi.
5.Village Administrative Officer,
Ponnankuppam Village,
Vikravandi Taluk.
6.Mannammal ... Respondents
[R6 impleaded vide order dated 04.04.2019 made in
W.M.P.No.10886 of 2019 in W.P.No.9066 of 2019]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to pass an order on the petition dated 05/08/2016 by the petitioner to include the petitioner name in the patta for the Survey No.34/10B & 34/10C to the extent of 6.5 cents for the water way connecting Eri Canal (Vaikaal ) located at Ponnankuppam Village, Vikraandi Taluk.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Selvaraj For R1 to R5 : Mr.K.Parameshwaran Government Advocate
Page numbers
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petition filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2016, wherein, the petitioner had sought for inclusion of his name in the patta with regard to the subject property.
2.This Court had already directed the 2nd respondent to deal with the petition filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
3.When the matter was taken up today, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petition submitted by the petitioner on 05.08.2016 has been rejected by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 13.08.2020.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire order is illegal and the 2nd respondent has passed the order without any application of mind and he requested this Court to deal with the order passed by the 2nd respondent on merits.
5.Considering the scope of this writ petition, this Court cannot go into the merits of the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.08.2020. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. Except giving this liberty, no further orders can be passed by this Court in this writ petition.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mkn
To
1.The Collector, Villupuram District.
Page numbers
Page numbers
P. Ayinu
The Collector, Villupuram District
Revenue Divisional Officer
Tasildar, Vikravandi Taluk
Revenue Inspector, Vikravandi Taluk Office
Village Administrative Officer, Ponnankuppam Village
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
