Disposed

Varalakshmi v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC9 Apr 2021WP/9034/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras directed the Sub Collector to consider the petitioner's appeal against the Tahsildar's order and pass suitable orders within twelve weeks, dispensing with notice to the third respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent (Sub Collector) to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 26.08.2020 and pass suitable orders within 12 weeks.

Varalakshmi Vs The Sub Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

W.P. No.9034 of 2021

Varalakshmi

… Petitioner

1.The Sub Collector, Sub Collector Office, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The Tahsildar, Old Hospital Road, Vandavasi, Tiruvannamalai 3. Poongavanam W/o. Narayanapillai ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose the petitioner's appeal filed on 26.08.2020 and pass orders within the stipulated time after giving opportunity to her. For petitioner ... Mr. M. Sridhar For respondents ... Mr. E. Balamurugan Spl. G.P. for R1 and R2

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's Appeal dated 26.08.2020.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent on 26.08.2020 as against the order passed by the second respondent, Tahsildar, including the name of the third respondent in the patta. But, so far no order has been passed by the first respondent. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

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

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶15

In view of the nature of the order that is going to be passed in the writ petition, which no way would prejudice the interest of the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, and also the fact that the petitioner's appeal, dated 26.08.2020 is pending with the first respondent, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2020 and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as other affected parties, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To
1.The Sub Collector,
Sub Collector Office,
Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Old Hospital Road,
Vandavvasi, Tiruvannamalai
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.22810
W.P. No. 9034 of 2021
PCH(CO)
CB(18/05/2021)

¶18

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

Varalakshmi v. The Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varalakshmi v. The Sub 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

A.Manimegalai Vs The District Collector

T.Meganathan Vs The District Collector

Muthusamy Vs The District Collector

T.PushpaBai Vs Thiru. J.Balaji

Csb Bank Ltd. Vs State rep by its District Registrar

Jansi Rani Vs Kanchanamala