Disposed

K.Ganesan v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Nov 2021WP/23465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus, the petitioner sought a direction to grant patta for 50 cents of land in Survey No.86. The court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's previous representation and pass an order on merits within sixteen weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive a copy of the order; respondents directed to consider representation dated 05.01.2021, afford personal hearing, and pass orders on merits within sixteen weeks.

K.Ganesan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

W.P.No.23465 of 2021

K. Ganesan

... Petitioner

Versus

The District Collector, Salem.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur, Salem.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Thalaivasal, Salem. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2021 and grant patta in S.No.86 measuring to an extent of 50 Cents in East Rajapalayam Village, Thalaivasal Taluk, Attur, Salem.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. R.Poornima For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan

¶14

Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2021 and grant patta in S.No.86 measuring to an extent of 50 Cents in East Rajapalayam Village, Thalaivasal Taluk, Attur.

¶17

The property in Survey No.88/9 measuring to an extent of 0.42.5 ares, East Rajapalayam Village, Thalaivasal, Attur, Salem, is the ancestral property, and Patta No.151 was also issued in favour of him. While so, 50 cents of land in Survey No.88/9 has been taken by the Authorities by laying Thar Road. Despite the fact that already there was an existing pathway in S.No.86, the same was not utilized for laying Thar Road, but the petitioner's agricultural land was utilized. Hence, Patta for the adjacent land in S.No.86 is poromboke land which had been utilized as pathway previously and now remain idle can be

¶18

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

¶19

granted to him by issuing Patta. Subsequently, the petitioner gave a representation dated 05.01.2021 to the first respondent, and the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 21.01.2021 directed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry, inspect and send a report to it, but the same has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to give another representation dated 08.07.2021 requesting to issue Patta comprised in Survey No.86, measuring to an extent of 50 cents, but, till date, no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence this petition.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2021 and dispose of the same within a stipulated time that may be framed by this Court.

¶21

Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer that is now sought for in this writ petition before this Court and taking into account the submissions made on either side, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation or the case pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2021 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

gba/msm

¶27

¶28

The District Collector, Salem.

¶29

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur, Salem.

¶30

The Tahsildar, Thalaivasal, Salem.

¶31

+1cc to Ms. R.Poornima, Advocate, S.R.No.56546 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.57659

¶32

W.P.No.23465 of 2021

¶33

JPL(CO) CT 07/12/2021

¶34

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

K.Ganesan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ganesan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Senthilkumar Vs The Sub Registrar

V.Kanagarasu Vs The District Collector

M.Natarajan Vs the Tahsildhar

M.Kannappan, 55 Yrs, Vs the State Rep by Its

Anjan Vs The District Collector

Sree Lalitha Vs the Assistant Settlement Officer (North)