Disposed

Ameer Bi v. N.Anwar Basha

Madras HC18 Apr 2022WMP/5328/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought leave to implead in an existing writ petition regarding disputed property. Court clarified that a prior order only directed consideration of representations and now directs the revenue authority to consider representation from both the petitioner and the first respondent, awarding a personal hearing, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Leave to implead granted; direction to Second Respondent to consider representations from both parties and pass orders within three months after personal hearing.

Ameer Bi Vs N.Anwar Basha — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.M.P.No.5328 of 2022 in W.P.No.22001 of 2021

¶2

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J,

¶3

The first respondent herein namely Anwar Basha had earlier filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.22001 of 2021 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to consider and dispose of his representation dated 17.07.2020 in accordance with law. This Court, without going into the merits of the case, has directed the second respondent to consider his representation dated 17.07.2020 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Now, one Mrs.Ameer Bi has filed this petition seeking grant of leave to her to be impleaded as second respondent in W.P.No.22001 of 2021.

¶4

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

¶5

has been in possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by the first respondent even prior to the year 1974. The first respondent, without impleading her as a party to the proceedings, filed a Writ Petition before this Court and obtained an order behind her back for consideration of his representation by the second respondent. Further, he would submit that a letter has also been sent by the petitioner in this regard, the same is yet to be considered by the second respondent.

¶6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶7

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court makes it clear that this Court has not passed any orders for grant of patta to the first respondent and only a direction has been issued to the second respondent to pass orders on his representation, on merits and in accordance with law. Further, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner also has given a representation to the second respondent in respect of the disputed property, hereby directs the second respondent to consider both the representations i.e. the representation of the petitioner as well as the representation of the first respondent, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to both the parties.

¶8

Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition is disposed of.

¶9

18.04.2022

¶10

raja

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J,

¶14

raja

¶15

W.M.P.No.5328 of 2022

¶16

in W.P.No.22001 of 2021

¶17

18.04.2022

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ameer Bi v. N.Anwar Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameer Bi v. N.Anwar Basha

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

B.Nagamani Vs M/S.Indo International Ltd.

R.Guna Sundari Vs R.Venkateshwar Rao (Deceased) 1.R.Narayana Rao and 10 others

Isha Foundation Vs Sathiyam Media Vision Private Limited

Janaki Arunachalam Vs Archana

A.Kumaraswamy Naicker (Decd) Vs Radha

Maria Doris Vs P.Dominic Rexeline