Disposed

R.Settu v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Nov 2021WP/21294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking issuance of patta for vacant land. The Court did not express an opinion on merits and directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry on counter-parties before passing orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to conduct enquiry on petitioner's application with notice to counter-parties and pass orders within twelve weeks.

R.Settu Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.21294 of 2021

R.Settu

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

2.The Thasildar, Kancheepuram Taluk Office, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner herein pertaining to the property at Plot No.78, Pullalur Village, Kancheepuram Division, Kancheepuram District in Patta No.59 measuring to an extent of 2 acre and 61 cent of vacant land comprising in Part of Survey No.415/1A, 339/2, 342/2, 403/3, 403/4, 404/1 and 404/2 of Pullalur Village, Kancheepuram Division, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan.

¶13

For R1 to R2 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Government Advocate.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner herein pertaining to the property at Plot No.78, Pullalur Village, Kancheepuram Division, Kancheepuram District in Patta No.59 measuring to an extent of 2 acre and 61 cent of vacant land comprising in Part of Survey No.415/1A, 339/2, 342/2, 403/3, 403/4, 404/1 and 404/2 of Pullalur Village, Kancheepuram Division, Kancheepuram District.

¶16

Heard Mr.N.Sudharsan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶17

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶18

writ petition, the second respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry on the application submitted by the petitioner on 22.01.2021, after issuance of notice to the counter parties i.e.Mallika and her sons S.Dhandapani, S.Ulaganathan and S.Prabhu, her daughter S.Devi and even to the petitioner, after giving them an opportunity of hearing and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period for twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

With the above direction, this writ petition is

¶20

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

¶28

2.The Thasildar, Kancheepuram Taluk Office, Kancheepuram District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.N.Sudharsan, Advocate SR. No.58335

¶30

+1cc to the Government Pleader SR. No.58170

¶31

W.P.No.21294 of 2021

¶32

NMI (CO) PR (01/12/2021)

¶33

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

R.Settu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Settu 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

Susheelamma, Vs The District Revenue Officer

J.Sathish Kumar Vs The Tahsildar

Saraswathi Vs The District Registrar

D.Vinayagam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Siva Vs The District Collector

K.Thiyagarajan(Died) Vs The District Collector