Disposed

Santhanam.K v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Aug 2021WP(MD)/14196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioners' representation regarding their 2C patta land, provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within two months before any dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the representation, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within two months.

Santhanam.K Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.14196 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.08.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD).No.14196 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.11144 of 2021

¶4

1.K.Santhanam 2.S.Govindaraj 3.S.Krishnamoorthy 4.S.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 3.The Panchayat President, Korikadavu Panchayat, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in Survey No.638/4 measuring to an extent of 1.14 acres situated at Korikadavu Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District except due process of law.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran Counsel for State For R3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Standing Counsel

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioners seek to prevent their dispossession from the land in Survey No.638/4 ad-measuring 1.14 acres at Korikadavu Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District except by following due process of law.

¶11

2.The petitioners state that they have been cultivating the poramboke land bearing the aforesaid survey number after their father's demise. It is stated that the second respondent by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/3

¶13

W.P.(MD).No.14196 of 2021

¶14

proceedings dated 02.12.1996 granted a 2C patta in respect of the aforesaid land. The petitioners allege that the third respondent approached the second respondent and attempted to influence the second respondent to dispossess the petitioners from the said land. According to the petitioners, there are only three circumstances under which interference is warranted with a 2C patta as per the Board Standing Order 18(2)(c). It is stated that the petitioners have not contravened the stipulations in the aforesaid Board Standing Order and, therefore, the petitioners should be protected.

¶15

3.In spite of submitting a representation in this regard to the second respondent, the petitioners apprehend that trees would be felled and removed from the property.

¶16

4.Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of the first and second respondents and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the third respondent.

¶17

5.The question as to whether the petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of the grant of 2C patta has to be examined by the second respondent by taking into account the relevant Board Standing Order in such regard. Needless to say, unless the petitioners have violated such terms and conditions, they should not be deprived of the benefit of such 2C patta.

¶18

6.Subject to the above observations, but without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent herein is directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 17.07.2021 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

7.W.P.(MD).No.14196 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD).No.11144 of 2021 is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

2/3

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.14196 of 2021

¶27

¶28

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶29

2.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 3.The Panchayat President, Korikadavu Panchayat, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. +1 CC to M/s.Special Government Pleader ( SR-26363[F] dated 16/08/2021 )

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.14196 of 2021 13.08.2021

¶31

RS (23.08.2021) 3P 5C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

Santhanam.K v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhanam.K 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheswari.M Vs the Manager

Anthony Nicholasbalan.S Vs the Commissioner of Fisheries

Indira.P Vs the District Collector

Viswanathan.M Vs the District Collector

Baramath Vs the Passport Issuing Authority

Kalyanasundari.G Vs the Sub Registrar