Dismissed

C.Perumal v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Oct 2021WP/22656/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate for revenue officers to amend the 'A' Register to reflect the correct land extent of the petitioner, which differed from the recorded entry. The Court directed the respondents to consider representations and dispose of the matter on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents 2 and 3 to consider representations, hold parties, and decide on merits within twelve weeks.

C.Perumal Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P. No.22656 of 2021

¶6

C.Perumal .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The District Collector, Salem District, Salem. 2. District Revenue Officer, Salem – 636 001.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Salem (West), Salem.

¶11

The Revenue Inspector, Thirumalai Giri Firka, Salem (West), Salem.

¶12

The Village Administrative Officer, Kothanur Village, Thirumalai Giri Firka, Salem (West), Salem. .. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2021 and 09.02.2021 and issue necessary orders to their offices to measure and carryout amendments in the “A” Register.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms. S.Harini

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadsan Government Advocate for R1

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2021 and 09.02.2021 and issue necessary orders to their offices to measure and carryout amendments in the “A” Register.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased a property from Thirumalai Chettiar in 1979 vide Document No.607 of 1979, Sub Registration District of Salem and the extent of property is 0.62 Cents in Kothanur Village in S.No.87/3. It is stated that the after the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner and his brothers Chinnappan, Chinnasamy and Ponnusamy, are carrying out agricultural activities in the said land and they did not effect partition. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his brothers approached the sixth respondent to re-ascertain the location and the boundaries of their property. At that time, the petitioner was informed that 0.36 cents only was entered in the “A” Register instead of 0.62 cents as originally purchased by his father. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.01.2021 to the Tahsildar, the fourth respondent herein, to carryout amendment in the “A” Register, enclosing the copies of the sale deed document No.607 of 1979 and also Document No.923 of 1965. Since no steps were taken by the fourth respondent, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.02.2021 to the second and third respondent. Since there was inaction on the part of the respondents, left with no other alternative remedy, the petitioner filed this present Writ Petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though representations were submitted to the respondents, no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner was put to great hardship. He further submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondents would deliberately offend Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court may direct the second and third respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 20.01.2021 and 09.02.2021 and the same may be disposed of by the second and third respondents.

¶22

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case, this Court directs the second and third respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 20.01.2021 and 09.02.2021 and after affording sufficient opportunities to the parties of being heard, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of

¶23

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

¶24

twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

bkn

¶28

To 1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem. 2. District Revenue Officer, Salem – 636 001. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. 4. The Tahsildar, Salem (West), Salem. 5. The Revenue Inspector, Thirumalai Giri Firka, Salem (West), Salem. 6. The Village Administrative Officer, Kothanur Village, Thirumalai Giri Firka, Salem (West), Salem. +5cc to Mr.G.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.54279 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.55053

¶29

W.P. No.22656 of 2021 CP(CO) CB(03/02/2022)

¶30

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

C.Perumal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Perumal 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

M.Thirukatesan Vs The Tahsildar

Gopalakrishnan Vs The Sub Registrar

Chandrakumari Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.Srinivasa, M/25 Vs the State Rep.by

Savarappa Naidu Vs The Special District Revenue Officer

H.Gomathi Vs The District Collector