Disposed

Gopal P.Prasad, v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC21 Apr 2021WP(MD)/13073/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's patta application, conduct an enquiry giving both parties opportunity, and pass orders within six weeks after a fresh submission by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to consider application, conduct enquiry ex-parte impossible, and pass orders within six weeks after petitioner submits documents.

Gopal P.Prasad, Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.13073 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.04.2021

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.(MD) No.13073 of 2012

¶6

Gopal P.Prasad ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Chengottai Taluk, Chengottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

2.Mr.D.Gladston Robin.

¶9

(2^nd respondent impleaded vide order passed in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013, dated 21.04.2021) ...Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issu a Patta to the petitioner for land in Survey Nos.1070/1A1 and 1070/1A2 in an extent of 9.76 Hectares (24 acres 14 cents) situated at Addavinainar Kovil Kadu, Chengottai, Chengottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents :Mr.M.Rajarajan for R1 Additional Government Pleader

¶12

Mr.Herold Singh for R2

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner with respect to the subject property.

¶15

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 02.09.2013, this Court directed the petitioner to implead the rival party as a respondent in this writ petition. Accordingly, an impleading petition was filed and it was ordered by this Court and the rival party has been added as the second respondent in this writ petition.

¶16

3.Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶17

4.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this writ petition, there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/2

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.13073 of 2012

¶20

shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 26.09.2011 and conduct an enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the impleaded second respondent and pass orders strictly in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

5.The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the first respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order.

¶22

6.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶25

To:

¶26

1.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Chengottai Taluk, Chengottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate ( SR-16993[F] dated 22/04/2021 )

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-17044[F] dated 22/04/2021 )

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.13073 of 2012 21.04.2021

¶30

RP(24.05.2021) P 4C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

Gopal P.Prasad, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal P.Prasad, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vignesh .P Vs The Commissioner

Senthur Pandi. N Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajagopal. R Vs The District Registrar

Bharathi Priyadharshini.K Vs the District Collector

Sundara Vinayagam Vs the Commissioner

Jeyaprakash.K Vs the District Collector