Disposed

Pappal @ Pappathi v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Oct 2021WP/26340/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions seeking a Mandamus to prevent interference in peaceful possession and to direct the Revenue Department to consider the petitioners' claim for grant of patta. Restricting the prayer to the patta claim due to time constraints, the Court directed the petitioners to submit representations within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representations within two weeks; District Collector directed to consider the claim within 12 weeks thereafter; petitions disposed of.

Pappal @ Pappathi Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.26340 and 26341 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.763 and 764 of 2018 Pappal @ Pappathi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.26340 of 2014 G.Raja ... Petitioner in W.P.No.26341 of 2014 Vs.

¶6

The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶7

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Assistant Collector, Mettur Revenue Division, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District. 3.The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District. 4.The President, N.Kalipatti Village Panchayat, Kalipatti, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ...Respondents in both W.Ps.

¶8

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 4^th respondent from interfering into petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.25/2 at M.Kalipatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's claim to grant of patta to the petitioner for the said land within the stipulated time.

¶9

For Petitioner in both W.Ps. : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

¶10

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

¶11

For Respondents in both W.Ps. : Mr.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate

¶12

CO M M O N O R D E R

¶13

Both the writ petitions have filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 4^th respondent from interfering into petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.25/2 situated at M.Kalipatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioners' claim to grant of patta to the petitioner for the said land within the stipulated time.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though both the writ petitioners filed the petitions forbearing the 4^th respondent from interfering into petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.25/2 situated at M.Kalipatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, due to paucity of time, the first limb of the prayer sought for in both the writ petitions do not require. However, the consequential prayers are required for directing the respondents in respect of issuance of patta to the petitioners.

¶15

Considering the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, without going into the merits of the case, restricted their prayer only for issuance of patta for the subject land.

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioners in the both the writ petitions are directed to send their representations along with the relevant documents before the 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the receipt of the same, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.

¶17

With the above direction both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶25

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Assistant Collector, Mettur Revenue Division, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District.

¶26

3.The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District.

¶27

4.The President, N.Kalipatti Village Panchayat, Kalipatti, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶28

W.P.Nos.26340 and 26341 of 2014

¶29

and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.763 and 764 of 2018

¶30

GJ(CO) SP(11/11/2021)

¶31

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

Pappal @ Pappathi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappal @ Pappathi 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

Thiruchengode Agricultural Vs the District Collector

V.Sivakumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Kolanjiammal @ Sarasu, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Smt.Rajarajeswari Danesh(Died) Vs the District Collector

Mrs.Lalitha Rajagopal(Deceased), Vs Inspector General of

S.Thripuranthagan(Died), Vs the District Revenue Officer