Disposed

R.Palanisamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Jul 2021WP/14469/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging unauthorized transfer of conditional patta. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and notice on merits within four weeks after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and notice within four weeks after an opportunity of hearing.

R.Palanisamy Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 14469 OF 2012
AND
W.M.P. NO. 8482 OF 2018

¶5

R.Palanisamy

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The District Collector
Collectorate Office
Salem-1.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar
Salem Taluk Office
Maravaneri,
Salem-7.
3.Chandra Gounder
(R3 is impleaded as per order dated
30.09.2016 by RMDJ in M.P.No.1 of 2013
in W.P.No.14469 of 2012)

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2012
along with the legal notice dated 14.03.2012.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr. R. Nalliyappan
For R1 and R2 :Mr. Stalin Abimanyu
Government Advocate
For R3:Mr. K.S. Kalyanaraman

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2012 along with the
legal notice dated 14.03.2012.

¶16

2. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of
the land situated in Survey No.25/2A measuring an extent of
1.64.0 Hectares and Survey No.25/3A measuring 0.35.0 Hectares at
Karpagam Village, Salem District, which was allotted to his
father by the State Government. The allotment order was issued
to the petitioner's father as an Adhi Dravidar and conditional
patta was issued to his father. As per the conditional Patta,
his father should not transfer the right of assignment in favour
of any third party. While so, the second respondent, without
any notice to the petitioner or his father, has transferred the
patta in respect of the said land in favour of the 3rd
respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation
dated 12.02.2012 and legal notice dated 14.03.2012 to the 2nd
respondent to cancel the entry made in the patta. Finding no
response on the same, he is before this Court with the present
writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶17

3. The prayer made in this writ petition has been
strongly opposed by the 2nd respondent, by filing a counter
affidavit, wherein in paragraph-6, it is stated as follows:
“6.This respondent further submits that
there is no copy of representation, or legal
notice evidencing receipt of the above
representation in the official records and hence
the allegations that the representation dated
12.02.2012 sent by the petitioner herein has
remained unanswered is utterly false. This
respondenthasnotreceivedanysuch
representationandifallanyfurther
representation is given to me the relief claimed
by the petitioner herein could not be granted as
the said land has been transferred to a auction
purchaser through Court auction and necessary
changes have been effected in the revenue records
in favour of Mr.Chandra Gounder viz., the auction
purchaser. Hence, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner herein is devoid of merits and liable
to be dismissed.”

¶18

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has enclosed the
acknowledgment card issued by the 2nd respondent, which finds
place in the typed set of papers.

¶19

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

¶20

5. At the outset, this Court finds that the land in
question was allotted to the father of the petitioner. However,
this writ petition is filed by the petitioner on behalf of his
father. It is not known as to why the petitioner has filed this
writ petition for and on behalf of his father. Be that as it
may, it is the stand of the second respondent that the
petitioner has not sent any representation at all. However, the
petitioner has produced the postal acknowledgment card in Page
No.7 of the typed set of papers. In such view of the matter,
this Court finds it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2012 as
well as the notice dated 14.03.2012 sent on behalf of the
petitioner, if it is not considered earlier and pass appropriate
orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.8482 of 2018
stands closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

kj/rsh

¶27

To

¶28

1. The District Collector
 Collectorate Office
 Salem-1.

¶29

2. The Tahsildar Salem Taluk Office Maravaneri, Salem-7.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate, S.R.No.32239

¶31

 WP No.14469 of 2012

¶32

RD(CO)

¶33

RLP(16/09/2021)

¶34

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

R.Palanisamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Palanisamy 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

V.Geetha, Vs the District Collector

A. Kudiarasu, M/45 Vs State Rep by Inspector

Bhuvana Vs The Reserve Bank of India

Sri Grama Devatha Kottai Vs The District Collector

S.Thilagavathi, Vs the Chief Divisional Retail

Rajasekar Vs the Union Territory of