Disposed

Manickam v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Jun 2022WP/14702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the District Collector to dispose of a pending appeal regarding land sale mutation. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the merits and pass orders within twelve weeks. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks after an opportunity of hearing.

Manickam Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.06.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.NO.14702 OF 2022 AND W.M.P.NO.13904 OF 2022

¶6

Manickam ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai. 4. The Tahsildar, Tandarampet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. 5. The Village Administrative Officer, Se.Kudalur, Tandarampattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai. 6. Mahendran ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER:-

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose the appeal dated 22.03.2018 filed against the order in proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4/9918/2016 dated 26.02.2018 on the file of the 3^rd respondent.

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to dispose the appeal dated 22.03.2018 filed against the order in proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4/9918/2016 dated 26.02.2018 on the file of the 3^rd respondent.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that the property admeasuring 1.24 acres comprised in Survey No.99/2, 2.80 acres out of 2.90 acres comprised in Survey No.99/3, thus totally admeasuring 4.04 acres with the Well, 5 HP motor pump set and service connection deposit for SC No.16, situated in Koodalur Village, Tandarampet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District are the self acquired properties of one Chinnasamy. The said Chinnasamy offered the aforesaid property for sale to the petitioner in the year 1995, and conveyed by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 27.06.1995, vide Document No.876/1995, on the file of SubRegistrar Office, Tandarampet. However, the revenue authorities failed to mutate the revenue records in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made representation dated 02.01.2017 before the respondents, however, the respondents failed to take any action on the said representation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3035 of 2018, and this Court by order dated 12.02.2018, disposed the said Writ Petition, by directing the third respondent herein to conduct enquiry and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. Pursuant to the direction, the third respondent had taken up the representation of the petitioner and the same was rejected by proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4/9918/2016 dated 26.02.2018, on the ground that the said land in question is classified as "Depressed Class". Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 22.03.2018 before the third and fifth respondents, seeking to set aside the order dated 26.02.2018. However, till date, the said appeal was not disposed of. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶16

Though very many grounds have been raised in this Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the second

¶17

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

¶18

respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 22.03.2018 and pass orders on merits within a particular time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶19

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

¶20

the respondents has no objection for the said order being passed.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to approach the second respondent along with the copy of the appeal dated 22.03.2018 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other aggrieved persons, if any.

¶22

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

¶29

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District,

¶30

Thiruvannamalai.

¶31

The District Revenue Officer,

¶32

Thiruvannamalai District,

¶33

Thiruvannamalai.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶35

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

¶36

The Tahsildar, Tandarampet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶37

The Village Administrative Officer, Se.Kudalur,

¶38

Tandarampattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.R.Rajarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.36063 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.35924

¶40

W.P.NO.14702 OF 2022 AND W.M.P.NO.13904 OF 2022

¶41

SKM(CO) PBS/30/06/2022

¶42

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

Manickam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manickam 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

H.Sureshkumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.S.Subbaiah Vs The Inspector General of

U.P.Sivakumaar Vs the District Collector

Chandrasekar Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Sabari Manikandan Vs S.Rathinavelu

P.Santhanagopalakrishnan Vs the Highways Department