Allowed

M.K.Ramasamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Aug 2021WP/7886/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a senior citizen seeking to quash a one-line order rejecting his patta transfer application. The Court set aside the order and directed the Tahsildar to consider the application with reasons within sixteen weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; instructions issued to the 2nd respondent to process the patta transfer application with reasons within 16 weeks.

M.K.Ramasamy Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.7886 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.8419 of 2021

¶6

M.K.Ramasamy .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, District Collectorate, Palayapalayam, Erode – 638 011.

¶9

The Thasildar, Erode Taluk, Erode – 638 001.

¶10

The Secretary to Government, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned rejection proceedings found online in Petition Number 2020/9005/10/715056/0710 dated 21.09.2020 quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent herein to take appropriate steps to transfer the patta to the name of the petitioner for the land located in the Survey No.214 measuring the extent of 3200 sq.ft located in the Surampatti Village at Erode Taluk.

¶12

For Petitioner .. Ms.S.Varsha

¶13

For RR1 to 3 .. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, (Govt.Advocate)

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The writ petition has been filed by a senior citizen who has approached this Court in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the online entry by which his application for transfer of patta was rejected by a cursory order without giving any reasons for the same.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the lands located in S.No.214, Surampatti Village, Erode Taluk, measuring to an extent of 3200 sq.fts. He had purchased the same by Sale Deed dated 03.02.1972 and registered as Document No.263/1972 in the office of the District Registrar, Erode. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The property was subjected to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, by the 3^rd respondent / Department of Housing and Urban Development.

¶18

The petitioner had questioned such acquisition proceedings, but was unsuccessful. He had made a further challenge seeking a direction not to pass any award and direction was given to restart the land acquisition proceedings from the enquiry stage. Fresh proceedings were initiated. Further challenge was laid by the petitioner herein. He had also filed an appeal against the order. Thereafter, a Division Bench had stated in W.A.No.331 of 1997 by order dated 30.07.1987 that a representation can be given to exclude the land of the petitioner from the purview of the land acquisition proceedings and if any such representation is made, the same may be considered and if possible favourably.

¶19

The petitioner thereafter, make several

¶20

representations. He again had to approach the Writ Court to quash the proceedings, which rejected exclusion of the land. Thereafter, he had been giving representation from the year 2015 to transfer the patta. Again he had approached this Court.

¶21

The narration of the facts would reveal that the petitioner had approached the Court on several occasions claiming practically the same relief. Finally, now quite frustrated by the order of the 2^nd respondent, wherein, his application was rejected as stated by a one line order that it is rejected without giving any reasons he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶22

The impugned order is therefore, interfered with and set aside and a direction is given to the 2^nd respondent / Tahsildar, Erode Taluk, to consider the online application made by the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 bearing

¶23

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

¶24

No.2020/9005/10/715056/0710, by issuing notice to the petitioner, hearing the petitioner and if any documents are required, requesting the petitioner to furnish such documents and thereafter passing an order with reasons. It is hoped that the 2^nd respondent would complete the entire process within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶25

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CCC) // True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

smv

¶30

¶31

The District Collector, District Collectorate, Palayapalayam, Erode – 638 011.

¶32

The Thasildar, Erode Taluk, Erode – 638 001.

¶33

The Secretary to Government, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶34

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.38483

¶35

W.P.No.7886 of 2021

¶36

SSV(CO) SU(24/08/2021)

¶37

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

M.K.Ramasamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Ramasamy 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

H.Baskar Vs The Commissioner

G.R.Shekar Vs The Government of India

M.Muniyandi Vs The Tahsildar

K.Kalyanasundaram Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Sriniammal Vs The District Collector

Mrs.S.Sasikala, Vs The Special Tahsildar