Disposed

Palanisamy v. The Commissioner of the Land Admnistration

Madras HC15 Apr 2021WP/5082/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to issue a patta for land. The Court directed the District Collector to consider the representation and pass suitable orders on merits within eight weeks without deciding on the merit of the land classification claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders on merits within eight weeks.

Palanisamy Vs The Commissioner of the Land Admnistration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.5082 of 2021

¶6

and W.M.P.No.5656 of 2021

¶7

Palanisamy .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner of the Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶10

The District Collector, Erode.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gopichettipalayam.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Sathyamangalam.

¶13

The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Erode. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta to the petitioner for the property situated in Ka.Sa.No.145/1 admeasuring about 1.86.0 hectares in Ikkaraithathapalli Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Eswar For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, Government Advocate

¶16

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed an application seeking for assignment in respect of the land situated at Ka.Sa.No.145/1 admeasuring about 1.86.0 hectares in Ikkaraithathapalli Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk.

¶18

According to the petitioner, he filed an application on 31.07.2018, to the first respondent and the first respondent directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and pass suitable orders. Thereafter, the fourth respondent also called

¶19

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

¶20

for an enquiry, in which, the petitioner appeared on 13.02.2021, but so far no orders have been passed, hence he filed the present writ petition.

¶21

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the land sought for assignment is classified as meikkal poramboke (grazing land) and the petitioner is not entitled for patta and the enquiry is still pending with the second respondent District Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Collector may be directed to pass suitable orders on merit.

¶22

Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the claim made by the petitioner, this Court direct the second respondent District Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KK To 1. The Commissioner of the Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2. The District Collector, Erode. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gopichettipalayam. 4. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Sathyamangalam. 5. The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Erode. +1cc to Mr.Eswar, Advocate, S.R.No.22739 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23119 W.P.No.5082 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.5656 of 2021 PL(CO) TE(30/04/2021)

¶23

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

Palanisamy v. The Commissioner of the Land Admnistration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanisamy v. The Commissioner of the Land Admnistration

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

T.PushpaBai Vs Thiru. J.Balaji

Csb Bank Ltd. Vs State rep by its District Registrar

Varalakshmi Vs The Sub Collector

A/m. Arunachaleswarar Thirukoil Vs a.Natarajan

V.Hariharan Vs The District Revenue Officer

A.Suryaganth Vs a.Natarajan