Disposed

M.Thirukatesan v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC21 Oct 2021WP/22207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the respondents' inaction regarding a Patta application. The Court, without adjudicating merits, directed them to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the representation dated 17.08.2021 and pass appropriate orders on Patta grant within six months.

M.Thirukatesan Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P. No.22207 of 2021

¶6

M. Thirukatesan, ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

1.The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipaid Taluk, Cuddalore District. 2.The Tahsildar, (Natham Scheme), Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipaid Taluk, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for to issue Writ of Mandamus directing respondents herein to grant patta to the Petitioner in respect of properties situate in Kannadi Village, Kurinjipaidi Taluk, Cuddalore District bearing in R.S. No.167/24- 825 Sq.M, R.S.No.167/24 725 Sq.M. R.S. No.167/24- 825 Sq.M, R.S. No.167/25 725 Sq.m by considering his representation dated 17.08.2021.

¶10

For Petitioner :: Mr. R. Gururaj (For D.Baskar) For Respondents :: Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan (Government Advocate)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to grant patta to the Petitioner in respect of properties situate in Kannadi Village, Kurinjipaidi Taluk, Cuddalore District bearing in R.S. No.167/24- 825 Sq.M, R.S.No.167/24 725 Sq.M. R.S. No.167/24- 825 Sq.M, R.S. No.167/25 725 Sq.m by considering his representation dated 17.08.2021 and pass appropriate orders accordingly.

¶13

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

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents as well as perused the material available on records.

¶15

Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the subject property was originally owned by the petitioner's grandfather namely, Mr.Rajagopal. After his demise, his legal heirs Mr.Pethavandu S/o. Mr. Rajagopal and Mrs.Kullammal D/o. Mr. Rajagopal, had taken over the subject possession and enjoyment of the same jointly. As Mr.Pethavandu died issueless, his wife G.Gokilambal and after the death of Mrs.Kullammal, her son namely, Magalingam, who is the petitioner's father have taken over the subject property. Since there was a dispute in the dividing of shares between them in the property, Mrs. Gogilambal filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No174 of 2016 against the petitioner's father before the II Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore. As the dispute was settled out by way of compromise memo whereby Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2016 was passed by the Lok Adalat, Cuddalore. According to the decree dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Lok Adalat, Cuddalore, the subject property was taken over by the petitioner's father, after having paid compensation to Mrs. Gokilambal H/o.Mr.Pethavandu in lieu of her share. Thereafter, The petitioner's father namely Mr. Mahalingam S/o. Kullammal has settled the subject property in favour of his son Mr.Thirukatesan who is the petitioner herein by way of registered settlement deed dated 01.11.2016. After acquiring the subject property by way of the aforesaid settlement Deed, the petitioner has approached the respondents for transfer of Patta in respect of properties to his name so many times and further, he has given a application to the Sub-Collector on 14.06.2019 requesting to issue Patta in his name subsequent to which, A communication dated 11.07.2019 was sent to the respondent to look into matter as prayed by the petitioner herein. Since there is no response and reply from the respondents, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 17.08.2021 through registered post for transfer of Patta in his name for the aforesaid property. Even though the respondents have been duly served, they have not passed any order and sent any reply to his representation dated 17.08.2021 so far. Under such circumstances, this Court without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case directs the respondents to consider the representation dated 17.08.2021 made by the petitioner herein with regard to grant of Patta in his name and pass appropriate orders on it within a period of Six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law after perusing the entire documents of the subject property relied by the petitioner herein.

¶16

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

¶17

In the result, the Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

Lbm

¶23

To:

¶24

1.The Tahsildar, Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipaid Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶25

2.The Tahsildar, (Natham Scheme), Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipaid Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶26

W.P. No.22207 of 2021

¶27

VBM (CO) PR (29/12/2021)

¶28

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

M.Thirukatesan v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thirukatesan 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

A.Thangam Vs The District Registrar

G.v.Devendiran, Vs The District Collector

P.Rajangam Vs The Tahsildar

A.Kanthappan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D.Balasundaram Vs The District Revenue officer

R.Natarajan Vs The Inspector General of Registration