Disposed

J.Soundarrajan v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Mar 2021WP/4262/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the conversion of lands earmarked as 'Mandhaiveli Poramboke' for an RTO office. The court avoided merits and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representation and dispose of it via a speaking order within three months before closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 20.01.2021 and dispose of it by a speaking order within three months.

J.Soundarrajan Vs State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.03.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

W.P.No.4262 of 2021

J.Soundararajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu

¶12

rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort St. George

¶13

Chennai 600 009.

¶14

The District Collector Office of the District Collector Mayiladuthurai District.

¶15

The Tahsildar Sirkali Taluk Mayiladuthurai District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to convert the lands in S.No.443/2 measuring about 6 acres which has been earmarked for "Mandhaiveli Poramboke" for any other purpose or transferring the said lands to any other departments and directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2021.

¶18

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Ramya For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan State Government Pleader

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Made by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)

¶22

The petitioner seeks to prevent the conversion of lands in S.No.443/2 in Annankoil Village, which were classified as mandaiveli poramboke in the revenue records.

¶23

The writ petitioner asserts that though a representation dated 20.01.2021 was issued in this connection to the respondents, the respondents are proceeding to undertake such conversion without responding to the said representation.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that when an alternative land is available for the purpose of establishing the RTO office, this land should not be considered for such purpose.

¶25

Learned Special Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that a Government Order was issued in accordance with applicable law for the conversion of the lands in S.No.443/2, so as to enable the use of such lands for the construction of the RTO office and that in spite of being aware of the same, the writ petitioner has filed the present petition for a writ of Mandamus, instead of challenging the Government Order for conversion.

¶26

In view of the conflicting contentions, without examining the merits or tenability of the petitioner's representation dated 20.01.2021, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same by a speaking order, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

W.P.No.4262 of 2021 is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.4869 of 2021 is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

kpl

¶33

¶34

The Principal Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort St. George

¶35

Chennai 600 009.

¶36

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

¶37

The District Collector Office of the District Collector Mayiladuthurai District. 3. The Tahsildar Sirkali Taluk Mayiladuthurai District. +1cc to M/s.R.Ramya , Advocate SR.No. 16973 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 17131 W.P.No.4262 of 2021 A.SK(31.03.2021)

¶38

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

J.Soundarrajan v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Soundarrajan v. State of Tamilnadu

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

The District Educational Officer Vs G.Irudayamery

The Tamil Nadu Construction Workers Welfare Board Vs B Mohamed Ali

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board Vs M/S.Vatech Wabag Ltd.

M/s.Iifl Home Finance Limited Vs The Chief Judicial Magistrate

K.N.Nehru Vs Chief Election Commissioner Election Commission of India

V.Jayabalan Vs Nb.Sabitha