Disposed

K.Annamalai v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC6 Aug 2021WP(MD)/13539/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench directed the third respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.04.2021 regarding the mutation of patta for land in Vadamadurai Village. The authorities were ordered to issue a reasoned order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order within three months.

K.Annamalai Vs the District Revenue Officer — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13539 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.08.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13539 of 2021

K.Annamalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani Revenue Division,

¶12

Dindigul District.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶14

4.Rengan ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to delete S.F.No.652A/3A1B of punja land having extent of 2.50 ares situated at Vadamadurai Village, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District from patta No.1750 and to include the same in the name of the petitioner based on his representation, dated 19.04.2021.

¶16

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Arul Jenifer For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Baskaran Counsel for State.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner seeks a mutation of the patta in respect of S.F.No.652A/3A1B in Vadamadurai Village, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶19

According to the petitioner, his father had purchased land bearing S.F.No.652A/3A, which came to be subdivided into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.F.Nos.652A/3A1A and 652A/3A1B. At such time, it is alleged that

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.P(MD)No.13539 of 2021

¶22

the land bearing S.F.No.652A/3A1B was wrongly included in patta no.1750 in the name of the fourth respondent herein. In spite of submitting representations to rectify the alleged defect, it is stated that no action has been taken by the official respondents.

¶23

Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and submits that the authority may be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

¶24

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.04.2021 and pass a reasoned order thereon after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the fourth respondent herein and any other persons who may be affected by such decision. Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.13539 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms without any order as to costs.

Sd/-

// True Copy //

tsg

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.

¶30

¶31

1.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶32

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani Revenue Division, Dindigul District.

¶33

3.The Tahsildar, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶34

W.P(MD)No.13539 of 2021 06.08.2021

¶35

MGJ(13.08.2021) 2P 4C

¶36

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

¶37

2/2

K.Annamalai v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Annamalai v. the District Revenue Officer

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

C. Sam Devadasan, Vs S. Jeyakumar

Seenivas Thangadurai.v Vs The Commissioner

Anthonysamy Vs The Revenue divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal

Aathilingam.v Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Rajendran Vs the Tahsildar

S.M.Aslam Vs the District Registrar