Dismissed

Krishnan v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Feb 2021WP(MD)/926/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the survey of his land. The court found the petition untenable as the land had already been surveyed on the specific date mentioned in the prayer, noting that the aggrieved party should approach the Civil Court for further grievance regarding the Surveyor's report.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal against Surveyor report or approach Civil Court; Writ Petition dismissed.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.926 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 09.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.(MD)No.926 of 2021

¶5

Krishnan ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs -

¶7

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

3.The Surveyor, Kamuthi Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

4.Rajamanickam 5.Kottaiswari 6.Tharmalingathevar 7.Raniyammal ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 02.03.2020 and to survey and demarcate the boundaries of petitioner land in Survey No.115 – 4B1 total extents Cents 12.486 Sq. ft. Kottaimedu, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and to disburse of the same within a time frame.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr.K.Kumaravel For Respondents 6 & 7 : No appearance

¶13

ORDER

¶14

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 produced a copy of the communication addressed by the Tahsildar concerned stating that the land, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition, had been surveyed on 30.05.2020. The communication also would state that the petitioner is not satisfied with the survey and measurement of the land and in case, he has got any further grievance, it is open to him to prefer an appeal against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ report of the Surveyor.

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.926 of 2021

¶17

2.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the survey has not been properly done and therefore, he would submit that there is a subsisting interest in the Writ Petition.

¶18

3.This Court is unable to appreciate as to how the Writ Petition could still be kept pending when the prayer itself is seeking survey of the land which had been done as early as on 30.05.2020. As rightly stated in the communication of the Tahsildar dated 21.01.2021, in case, the petitioner still has any grievance against the survey conducted by the respondents, it is open to him to file an appeal against the Surveyor report or it is always open to approach the competent Civil Court.

¶19

4.In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

SRM To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶24

2.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶25

3.The Surveyor, Kamuthi Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶26

+1 CC to MR.K.KUMARAVEL, Advocate ( SR-4095[F] dated 09/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/S.S.BHARATHI, Advocate ( SR-4417[F] dated 11/02/2021 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-4606[F] dated 11/02/2021 )

¶27

W.P(MD)No.926 of 2021 09.02.2021

¶28

KM (19.02.2021) 2P 7C

¶29

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

¶30

2/2

Krishnan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan 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

Sakthivel Vs The Tahsildar

Ganeshan.S.K Vs Commissioner of Land Administration

Mohamed Shafeek.N Vs the Controller of Examinations.

M.Ilayaraja, S/O.Mokkaiyan Vs the Additional Collector /

Selvi Vs The Tahsildar

Sankaramoorthy. R Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Registration