Dismissed

M.Sivagami v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Jun 2021WP/11800/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 directing the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2020 regarding corrections in computerised patta documents and pass suitable orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2020 and pass suitable orders on merits within twelve weeks.

M.Sivagami Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.06.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.11800 of 2021

¶6

M.Sivagami @ Sigamani ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, District Collector's Office, Perundurai Road, Erode District - 638 011.

¶9

The Revenue Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk Office, SH 96, Perundurai, Erode District - 638 052.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Meenakshi Sundaram Road, Erode - 638 003. ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2020, seeking to make necessary correction in the Computerized documents confirming the Patta issued in the favour of the petitioner herein, within the time limit fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Murali For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation to the first respondent dated 11.11.2020, seeking to correct the Re-Survey number in the Computerized documents in conformity with the patta already issued in favour of the petitioner, has not been considered by the respondents till date.

¶15

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

¶16

According to the petitioner, some mistakes have crept in the computerised document, in respect of the patta issued in her favour. Hence, she sent a representation dated 11.11.2020, to the first respondent and the first respondent directed the second respondent to take necessary action vide his letter dated 08.12.2020, but so far no orders have been passed, hence she filed the present writ petition.

¶17

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the third respondent will consider the said representation of the petitioner and will pass suitable orders on merit.

¶18

Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.11.2020 and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kk To

¶20

The District Collector, District Collector's Office, Perundurai Road, Erode District - 638 011.

¶21

The Revenue Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk Office, SH 96, Perundurai, Erode District - 638 052.

¶22

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

¶23

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Meenakshi Sundaram Road, Erode - 638 003.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.A.Murali, Advocate, S.R.No.27842

¶25

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.27867

¶26

W.P.No.11800 of 2021

¶27

JPL(CO) KKV/09/07/2021

¶28

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

M.Sivagami v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sivagami 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

Nandhakumar Vs State

S.Arumugam Vs State Rep by

Rangarajan Vs the State by

V.Sekar Vs The Chief Secretary

Ajay Vs the State Rep. by

P.Manikandan Vs State Rep by Its