Disposed

Anbalagan, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Jul 2021WP/14537/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging alleged irregularities in the allotment of free houses. Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within six weeks without adjudicating the merits immediately.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.06.2011 and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

Anbalagan, Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.NO.14537 OF 2012

¶6

Anbalagan

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The Commissioner,
 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
 Chennai - 15.
2. The District Collector,
 Ariyalur.
3. The Tahsildar,
 Ariyalur.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
the second respondent to consider the representation of the
petitioner herein dated 20.06.2011 and dispose of the same
within a reasonable period.
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondent: Mr.G.Krishnaraja,
 Government Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus
directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 20.06.2011 and dispose of the same within a
reasonable period.

¶15

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the Government
allotted funds to construct 100 free houses in the name of
Samathuvapuram at Mannuli village, Ariyalur District. Nearly 400
applications were received from the villagers, out of which,
more than 250 applications were made by one Kamaraj, who is the
Panchayat President of Thelur village and his relatives and
interested candidates were selected and houses were also
allotted to them. The said allotment was opposed by the homeless
persons stating that the said Kamaraj did not select the
candidates in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under
G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 14.07.2009. However, without taking necessary
action against him, the respondents were trying to issue patta
in favour of those ineligible candidates. Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner made a representation dated 20.06.2011 to the second
respondent, which was also not considered. Therefore, this writ
petition.

¶16

3.Upon notice, the second respondent filed a detailed
counter affidavit, wherein, it is inter alia stated that all the
applications for the allotment of houses were received from the
individuals after proper announcement in the village; the
Village Panchayat President was only a member of the selection
committee and he has not made any representation to include any
of the beneficiary; and hence, there was no irregularity in the
selection of beneficiaries and the selected beneficiaries have
all occupied the houses allotted to them.

¶17

4.The aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit
have been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
According to him, there were serious irregularities in the
allotment of houses and hence, enquiry has to be conducted by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.06.2011.

¶18

5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the second

¶19

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

¶20

respondent would consider the representation of the petitioner
and pass orders, on merits, within a reasonable time to be
stipulated by this court.

¶21

6.In view of the above, this Court, without going into the
merits of the case, directs the second respondent to pass
orders, on the petitioner's representation dated 20.06.2011, on
merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

7.This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above
direction. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

mrr

¶28

To

¶29

1. The Commissioner,
 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
 Chennai - 15.

¶30

2. The District Collector,
 Ariyalur.

¶31

3. The Tahsildar,
 Ariyalur.

¶32

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.34309

¶33

W.P.No.14537 of 2012

¶34

PMK(CO)
RLP(17/09/2021)

¶35

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

Anbalagan, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anbalagan, v. the Commissioner

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

M/S.Sri Murugan Enterprizes Vs the Tamilnadu Minerals

M.Kandasamy Vs the Chief Engineer (General)

The Doctors Welfare Vs Principal Secretary

R.Mohan Ranganathan Vs The Commissioner

K.Ravichandran Vs The Inspector of Police

Mr.Kamal Basha, Vs Reserve Bank of India