Disposed

M.Thiagarajan v. The Revenue Tahsildar

Madras HC7 Apr 2021WP/23733/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Revenue Tahsildar to decide a petitioner's representation to modify a land patta by removing private respondents' names and restoring the petitioner's name. The order mandated giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all parties within four weeks before the final merit-based decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to issue notice to all parties, afford opportunity of hearing, and decide petitioner's representation on merits within two weeks.

M.Thiagarajan Vs The Revenue Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.23733 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date : 07.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.23733 of 2018
M.Thiagarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Tahsildar,
Tirukovilur Taluk,
Villupuram District 605 757.
2.The Sub Collector,
Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Villupuram.
4.J.Janardhanan
5.Parthiban ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to modify the Patta in respect of S.No.23/5 of No.172, T.Sathanur Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District by deleting the name of the 4th and 5th respondents and restoring the petitioner's name in the Revenue Records including patta by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 27.08.2018, filed with the 1st respondent herein.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal

¶9

1/6

¶10

W.P.No.23733 of 2018

¶11

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.J.Pothiraj Special Government Pleader For 5th Respondent : Mr.Avinash Wadwani For Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the

¶14

first respondent to modify the Patta in respect of S.No.23/5 of No.172, T.Sathanur Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District by deleting the name of the fourth and fifth respondents and restoring the petitioner's name in the Revenue Records including patta by considering the representation of

¶15

the petitioner dated 27.08.2018, filed with the first respondent herein.

¶16

2.In respect of patta for the land at Survey No.23/5 of No.172, T.Sathanur Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District, the petitioner seems to have made a request on 27.08.2018 to the first respondent to

¶17

remove the name of the private respondents in that patta and to include the

¶18

name of the petitioner.

¶19

3.Since the said request has not been considered for longer time, the

¶20

petitioner had filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶21

2/6

¶22

W.P.No.23733 of 2018

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence

¶24

of this Court to give a direction to the respondents, especially the first respondent to decide the request of the petitioner dated 27.08.2018, of course by giving an opportunity of being heard to both parties and decide

¶25

the same on merits within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶26

5.Heard Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing

¶27

for the official respondents, who would submit that, the said request would

¶28

be decided on merits, of course after giving an opportunity to both sides.

¶29

6.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would also agree by the said action on the part of the first respondent to dispose the representation dated 27.08.2018 by giving an opportunity of being heard

¶30

to both the petitioner as well as the private respondent.

¶31

7.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel

¶32

appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶33

3/6

¶34

W.P.No.23733 of 2018

¶35

8.In view of the innocuous nature of the prayer sought for by the petitioner, where, his request dated 27.08.2018 was with regard to change of name in the patta, referred to above, as claimed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by taking into account the

¶36

respective submissions made in this regard by the learned counsel.

¶37

9.There shall be a direction to the first respondent i.e., the Revenue Tahsildar, Tirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.08.2018 pertaining to the patta in respect of S.No.23/5 of No.172, T.Sathanur Village, Tirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District by giving an opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner as well as the fourth and fifth respondents by issuing separate notice intimating the date of hearing within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

10.After receipt of the notice, the petitioner as well as the private respondents can appear before the first respondent on the date mentioned in

¶39

the notice and after hearing them, let the first respondent decide the

¶40

4/6

¶41

W.P.No.23733 of 2018

¶42

representation of the petitioner dated 27.08.2018 on merits and in

¶43

accordance with law and pass final orders thereon after two weeks.

¶44

11.With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶45

07.04.2021
Sgl
To
1.The Revenue Tahsildar,
Tirukovilur Taluk,
Villupuram District 605 757.
2.The Sub Collector,
Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Villupuram.

¶46

5/6

¶47

W.P.No.23733 of 2018

¶48

R.SURESH KUMAR, J. Sgl

¶49

W.P.No.23733 of 2018
07.04.2021

¶50

6/6

M.Thiagarajan v. The Revenue Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thiagarajan v. The Revenue 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

V.Ravichandran Vs the Inspector General of Police

G.Selvarajan, Vs the Director of School

A.R. Mani Vs the Superintending Engineer

M.Vijaya, Vs The Sub-Registrar

C.Balasundaram Vs The District Collector

S.Jeevanatham Vs The District Collector