Disposed

Ramani v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Nov 2021WP(MD)/19230/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking survey and demarcation of land. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation after providing notice to other legal heirs of the original pattadhar and adjoining owners within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Second Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.09.2021 and dispose of it after providing notice to legal heirs of Pitchaiah Pillai and adjoining owners, to be

Ramani Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.19230 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19230 of 2021

Ramani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai Collectorate Office, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Firka Surveyor, Cholavanthan, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing to respondents 1 to 3 to survey and demarcate the petitioner's property in Survey No.4/5 in Cholavanthan Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.09.2021.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner seeks a direction for the survey and demarcation of the property bearing Survey No.4/5 in Cholavanthan Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶16

The petitioner traces title to the above mentioned property through a registered partition deed dated 19.03.1973 in favour of her father. According to the petitioner, the “C” schedule property under the said partition deed was allotted to the share of the petitioner's father. Subsequently, by a registered gift deed dated 23.12.2010, the said property was settled in favour of the petitioner. In order to undertake a survey and fence the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ properties, the petitioner remitted the necessary fee on 26.07.2021.

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P(MD)No.19230 of 2021

¶19

However, it is stated that no action was taken on the petitioner's request for a survey.

¶20

Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice for all the respondents. He submits that the second respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's application for a survey after putting the other legal heirs on notice.

¶21

On perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is noticeable that Patta No.9 was issued in respect of the property bearing Survey No.4/5. The said patta has been issued in the name of Pitchaiah Pillai, who is said to be the petitioner's grandfather. The total extent under Survey No.4/5 is 9 ares, which roughly corresponds to 22 cents. The petitioner's request for survey is in respect of a smaller extent of 7 ¼ cents which was allotted to her under the settlement deed. As such, it is necessary to put the other legal heirs of Pitchaiah Pillai on notice before the petitioner's request is considered. In addition, the owners of adjoining properties whose boundaries would be impacted by the conduct of a survey should be put on notice.

¶22

Subject to the above observations, W.P(MD).No.19230 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.09.2021 and dispose of the same after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to the legal heirs of the pattadhar, Pitchaiah Pillai. Such representation shall be disposed of by a reasoned communication within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.

¶23

tsg/LM

¶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

¶26

1.The District Collector, Madurai Collectorate Office, Madurai District.

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P(MD)No.19230 of 2021

¶30

2.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶31

3.The Firka Surveyor, Cholavanthan, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-33523[F] dated 02/11/2021 )

¶33

W.P(MD)No.19230 of 2021 01.11.2021

¶34

SRK(CO) KB(16.11.2021) 3P 5C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

Ramani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramani 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Senthilkumar Vs Kasthuri

Mr.C.Dasarathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Dhinamalar Daily Tamil News Vs Chinnadurai

N.Mohan Vs the State Rep by

K.Santhosh Kumar Vs M.Marimuthu

Narasimman Vs the State Repby