Disposed

U.Jayachandran, v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Mar 2022WP/32169/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged issuance of patta to church trustees claiming temple was owner. Court directed Tahsildar to admit petitioner's objections, hear both sides, and decide on merits after considering pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before Tahsildar to raise objections. Tahsildar to consider objections, afford hearing, and pass suitable order on merits.

U.Jayachandran, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.03.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.NO.32169 OF 2016 AND W.M.P.NO.27907 OF 2016

U.Jayachandran

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶10

The Thasildar, Thasildar Office, Cheyyar.

¶11

The RDO, Madhuranthagam, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

VAO, Kuvathoor, Kancheepuram District.

¶13

Manikam,

¶14

Malika

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Prayer:

¶17

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from issuing patta in favour of the 5th and 6th respondent.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.M.Shahjahan

¶19

Special Government Pleader For Respondents 5 & 6 : Mr.S.Suresh

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to grant patta in favour of the respondents 5 and 6.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that Arulmigu Angalamman Thirukovil, Kuvathoor, is the owner of the property situated in Survey No.787/7 and the respondents 5 and 6 were permitted to occupy the land. Now, they are claiming ownership over the said property and seeks patta. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 submits that earlier claiming ownership over the said property, they have filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking patta, when the same was not considered, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.28331 of 2013, and this Court by an order dated 21.11.2013, directed the Tahsildar to consider the said application and pass orders and now the enquiry is pending. Even though the petitioner knows the said fact, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶25

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that they are not aware of any such proceedings or enquiry pending with regard to granting of patta to respondents 5 and 6 before the second respondent Tahsildar.

¶26

Considering those circumstances, if the petitioner has any grievance, he can appear before the second respondent Tahsildar and raise all his objections, on filing such objections, the second respondent Tahsildar is directed to consider the objections, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6, pass suitable order on merits and in accordance with law. With the above direction this writ petition is closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Cheyyar. 3. The RDO, Madhuranthagam, Kancheepuram District. 4. The VAO, Kuvathoor, Kancheepuram District.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan, Advocate, S.R.No.14545 +1cc to Mr.S.Suresh, Advocate, S.R.No.13936

¶36

W.P.No.32169 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.27907 of 2016

¶37

PMK(CO) PM/11/04/2022

¶38

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

U.Jayachandran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Jayachandran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Kuppusamy Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies

M.Mani, Vs Union of India

Dr.R.Balaji, Vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu

P.a.Josseph Vs The Election Commission of India

S.Vasanthi Vs The Inspector General of

P.Pon Perumal Vs The TamilNadu Arasu Cable