Justice C.V. Karthikeyan dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking patta for land in Tiruvannamalai. The Court condemned the Tahsildar's stance of waiting for the petition outcome and directed disposal within 6 weeks.
The third respondent (Tahsildar) was directed to dispose of the representation dated 01.04.2019 within 6 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No. 26559 of 2019 and WMP.No.25932 of 2019
M.Amavasai ...Petitioner Vs.
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 01.04.2019 and issue patta in his favour in respect of land measuring an extent of 4 cents comprised in Survey Nos.110/17 and 110/23 and an extent of 7 ½ cents in Survey No.110/18, 110/46 and 110/47 of Pavupattu Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.
For Petitioner .. Mr.B.Janakiram
For Respondents .. Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Govt.Advocate
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2019 and issue patta in his favour in respect of lands measuring an extent of 4 cents comprised in Survey Nos.110/17 and 110/23 and an extent of 7 ½ cents in Survey No.110/18, 110/46 and 110/47 of Pavupattu Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.
2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property measuring an extent of 4 cents in survey No.110/17 & 110/23 and another extent of 7½ cents in survey No.110/18, 110/46 and 110/47 all in Pavupattu Village, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The petitioner claims that he has purchased the said property by an unregistered sale deeds dated 06.12.1995 and 28.09.1995 and also dated 23.05.1996. He claims that he had also constructed a cement sheet house. He has also obtained electricity service connection. He also claims that he is in a continuous possession for the past 24 years. He then applied for patta in his name. Rather unfortunately, the respondent, particularly, the third respondent Thasildar Thiruvannamalai had not taken any step. In this connection, the petitioner had given a representation on 01.04.2019 and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent had also forwarded the representation to the third respondent directing him to take necessary action.
4.A counter has been filed in which the third respondent had stated that he would dispose of the representation after the disposal of the present writ petition. The said stand of the third respondent is to be condemned. The third respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the representation dated 01.04.2019 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He may issue notice to the petitioner and also enquire the petitioner with respect to the nature of the holding of the lands mentioned by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
5.The petitioner may give a fresh copy of the representation directly to the third respondent.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sms
To
+3CCs to Mr.B.Janakiram, Advocate, Sr.No.38774
+1CC to Government Pleader, Sr.No.38849
W.P.No.26559 of 2019 and WMP.No.25932 of 2019
PL (CO) K.RK. (02.09.2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the third respondent can delay disposal of representation pending disposal of the writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Amavasai
The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai
The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
