Disposed

K.Kalaiyarasi, v. the Collector

Madras HC21 Apr 2021WP(MD)/4038/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Tahsildar (third respondent) to consider the petitioners' representation dated 19.02.2013 for issuing patta for specific land. The Court ordered the Tahsildar to afford an opportunity to all parties and decide the matter within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 19.02.2013, afford opportunity to all parties, and decide the matter on merits within eight weeks.

K.Kalaiyarasi, Vs the Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4038 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.04.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD) No.4038 of 2013

¶4

1.K.Kalaiyarasi 2.A.Chandramathi

¶5

3.A.Sakthivel

¶6

4.A.Murugavel ...Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Collector, Tiruchirappalli District,

¶9

Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Tiruchirappalli Taluk, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

¶12

4.Dhanaselvi

¶13

5.Karuppayee ... Respondents

¶14

(Respondents 4 and 5 were impleaded vide order passed in M.P.(MD). No.3 of 2013, dated 21.04.2021)

¶15

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation, dated 19.02.2013 and to issue patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of Ayan Nanja land comprised in S.F.No.110/3, Pandamangalam Village, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli Taluk and District.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Sankhar Murali

¶17

For Respondents : Mrs.M.Rajeswari for R1 to R3 Government Advocate

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 19.02.2013, wherein, the petitioners are seeking for the issuance of patta in their names with respect to the subject property.

¶20

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 16.04.2013, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.4038 of 2013

¶23

Court directed the petitioner to implead the necessary parties and accordingly, impleading petition was filed and it was allowed by this Court and the proposed fourth and fifth respondents have been made as parties in this writ petition.

¶24

3.Heard Mr.K.S.Sankhar Murali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.Rajeswari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents.

¶25

4.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioners, on 19.02.2013, after affording opportunity to the petitioners and the impleaded respondents 4 and 5 and deal with the same on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

5.The petitioners are directed to make a fresh representation to the third respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS III)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

1.The Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

¶36

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

2/3

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.4038 of 2013

¶39

3.The Tahsildar, Tiruchirappalli Taluk, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-17180[F] dated 22/04/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.S.SANKAR MURALI, Advocate ( SR-17239[F] dated 23/04/2021 )

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.4038 of 2013 21.04.2021

¶42

KK(05.07.2021) 3P 6C

¶43

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

¶44

3/3

K.Kalaiyarasi, v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kalaiyarasi, v. the 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

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