Disposed

R.Manivannan v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Nov 2021WP/31907/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a directive for alternate accommodation pursuant to a District Court order. The High Court, without deciding merits, directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 20.09.2019 regarding alternate accommodation after a hearing, within twelve weeks.

R.Manivannan Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P. No.31907 of 2019

R.Manivannan

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Karaikkal.

¶10

The Deputy Collector (Revenuecum-Estate Officer),

¶11

Karaikkal.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Thirunallar.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to give alternate accommodation as per the order passed by the learned District Court, Karaikkal, dated 02.02.2016 within the stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.C.T.Ramesh

¶17

Additional Government Pleader Pondy.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to give alternate accommodation as per the order passed by the learned District Court, Karaikkal, dated 02.02.2016 within the stipulated period.

¶20

Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.T.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondy) appearing for the respondents.

¶21

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

¶22

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶23

Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2019, as directed by the District Munsif Court, Karaikkal, by an order dated 02.02.2016 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2014, after giving opportunity of hearing and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶24

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands

¶25

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

rts

¶31

¶32

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Karaikkal.

¶33

The Deputy Collector (Revenuecum-Estate Officer),

¶34

Karaikkal.

¶35

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Thirunallar.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate, S.R.No.58329

¶37

+1cc to the Government Pleader(Pondicherry), S.R.No.58354

¶38

W.P. No.31907 of 2019

¶39

SMI(CO)

¶40

SB(01/12/2021)

¶41

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

R.Manivannan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Manivannan 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

K.Peer Mohammed Vs the District Collector

R.Settu Vs The District Collector

Ponnappa Nadar Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

M.Rangan S/O.Muthan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary Cum

Subramaniyan Vs The Tahsildar

R.Kesavalu Vs The District Revenue Officer