Allowed

S.Loganathan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WP/27523/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2018 concerning the unauthorized issuance of a UDR Patta to third parties over land the petitioner claimed as joint owner, mandating a decision with notice to all interested parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the representation, give notice to interested parties, and pass a final order within three months.

S.Loganathan, Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 27523 of 2018

¶6

S.Loganathan ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the
petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Sekar For Respondents: Mr.N.Inbanathan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R

¶9

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2018.

¶10

2. The petitioner claims to be a joint owner of the land at Chettiyar Agaram Village, Porur, Thiruvallur District. In respect of the said land, it seems that, UDR Patta has been given to some third parties without the knowledge of the petitioner and other legal heirs. Therefore, in order to rectify the same and cancel the UDR Patta, the petitioner has already given a representation to the respondents, especially the first respondent on 05.04.2018. Since the same has not been considered, he has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶11

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

¶12

3. Heard Mr.T.P.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has reiterated the aforesaid facts and seeks indulgence of this Court to give a direction to the respondents.

¶13

4. Heard Mr.N.Inbanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents who would submit that, if the said representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2018 so far has not been considered, certainly that would be considered and an order to that effect on merits would be passed within a time frame.

¶14

5. Considering the said submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and taking the innocuous nature of the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following orders:

¶15

"That the respondents are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2018 and decide the same after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as third parties, in whose favour UDR Patta claimed to have been given, by giving separate notices to them and accordingly, final order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶16

With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vji
To
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
+1 cc to M/s.T.P.Sekar, Advocate Sr.No. 23062
+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No. 23399
W.P. No. 27523 of 2018
PL(CO)
RMP(10/05/2021)

¶17

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

S.Loganathan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Loganathan, 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

D.Natarajan, Vs the Commissioner

C.Padma Jothi Vs The District Collector

M.P.Kasturi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Shivamma Vs The District Collector

Mrs.M.Kamala Bai (Deceased) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Sadhuram Vs The District Revenue Officer