Dismissed

Ramasamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Jan 2021WP(MD)/16056/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The court held that the petitioner's request for patta regarding specific land surveys had already been complied with, as admitted in the respondents' counter affidavit citing prior issuance of patta Nos. 2390 and 2327.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as having become infructuous with no costs awarded.

Ramasamy Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.16056 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.(MD) No.16056 of 2013

Ramasamy

... Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶8

2.The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to issue patta in favour of petitioner in respect of Survey Nos.446/2 & 447/1 Mettupatti, Karupattur Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh

¶11

Special Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in S.Nos.446/2 and 447/1, situated at Mettupatti, Karupattur Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶14

2.In response to the notice issued in this writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent. In the counter affidavit, it had been stated in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 that the request of the petitioner has been complied with and the same reads as follows:-

¶15

“ 3.As regards the contention raised in paragraph 2 of the affidavit, it is humbly submitted that as per orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Trichy I changes for the property comprised in S.F.No.446/2 was carried out and patta No.2390 issued in the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, as per assignment order made by Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Trichy in S.F.No.447/1, the land was measured into 5 subdivisions, and suit property of 0.38.0 hect. (0.94 acre) was included in newly subdivided S.F.No.447/3 and patta No.2327 issued in favour of the petitioner. I submit herewith the extracts of village records and computed chitta as a proof of such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mutation, for favour of kind perusal by the Hon'ble Court.

¶16

1/2

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.16056 of 2013

¶18

4.With reference to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it is humbly submitted that the request of the petitioner has been complied with, as per orders of the then Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms. The allegations contra to this recede to the background.”

¶19

3.In view of the same, nothing survives for further consideration in this writ petition and therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.

¶20

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

mm To

¶24

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶25

2.The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-2588[F] dated 01/02/2021 )

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.K.GOVINDARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-2233[F] dated 27/01/2021 )

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.16056 of 2013 27.01.2021

¶29

(PM)CO AP(09/02/2021) 2 P 5C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Ramasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Correspondent Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

L.Balakrishnan, Xii Standard Vs The Director

Periyasamy Vs the Dist.Collector

Balasubramanian Vs the District Collector

Parameshwaran Vs the Tahsildar

P. Tamilselvi, Vs the District Revenue Officer