Disposed

S.Palani v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC27 Apr 2021WP/10428/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the respondent's failure to consider his representation regarding the issuance of a patta for purchased property. The High Court directed the respondent to dispose of the application on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders on merits after hearing the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this

S.Palani Vs The Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.10428 of 2021

¶6

S.Palani ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

The Tahsildar Maduravoyal Taluk Office Bharathi Road, Nolambur Phase II Mugappair, Chennai 600 037. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of property an extent of 945 Sq.ft situated at Survey Nos.112/1B1 and 114/5B at Arul Nagar, Koladi Village, previously Poonamallee Taluk now Maduravoyal Taluk, Thiruvallur District based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2021 within time limit stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subburaj
For Respondent : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari,
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶11

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2021 and to issue patta in favour of petitioner herein within a stipulated time.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that, he has purchased the property to an extent of 945 sq.ft in Survey No. 112/1B1 and 114/5B at Arul Nagar, Koladi village, previously Poonamallee Taluk and now Maduravoyal Taluk, Thiruvallur District from one K.Vijayakumar. Now, seeking patta, he has submitted a representation before the respondent on 22.01.2021,

¶14

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

¶15

but so far, it was not considered and no order has been passed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶16

Considering the limited prayer sought in the present Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, the respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and pass suitable orders on merits in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
The Tahsildar
Maduravoyal Taluk Office
Bharathi Road, Nolambur Phase II
Mugappair, Chennai 600 037.
+1cc to Mr.R.Subbraj, Advocate SR.No.25929
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.26341
W.P.No.10428 of 2021
RLD (CO)
A.SK(08.07.2021)

¶18

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

S.Palani v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Palani v. The Tahsildar

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

Krishnamurthy Vs Anu

A.Sivasami Vs S.a.Raman,I.a.S.

J.Sethuraman Vs Sabanayagam

S.Aravindaraj Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Sampath Vs The District Collector

K.Athilakshmipathi Vs The District Revenue Officer