Allowed

Sabestin v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Jan 2022WP(MD)/1137/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought cancellation of a patta issued to a fourth respondent and directed measurement of land. This court held that the matter required departmental inquiry, directed the Tahsildar to enquire, issue notices, and pass orders within 12 weeks, and disposed of the writ petition. S.No. 1137 W.P.(MD)2022 MHC 25.01.2022

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar directed to enquire into representations, issue notices to petitioner and fourth respondent, and measure land within 12 weeks.

Sabestin Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.1137 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.1137 of 2022

Sabestian

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirengam Revenue Division, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶13

4.Thiruthuvadass ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent issued in Patta No.2399 with respect to 0.87.5 Hectares of land in Survey No.872/2D of Mohavanur South Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District issued to the fourth respondent and cancel the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to measure the properties in Survey No.872/2D, Survey No.872/2F, Survey No.872/2E, Survey No.872/5 and Survey No.872/7, to an extent of 4 acres and 31 cents based on the petitioner's representations dated 18.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 28.12.2021 and 30.12.2021 given to the respondents 1 to 3.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Madasamy For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

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

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.1137 of 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with the patta issued by the third respondent/ the Tahsildar, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District in Patta No.2399 with respect to 0.87.5 Hectares of land in Survey No.872/2D of Mohavanur South Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District which patta had been issued to the fourth respondent. The petitioner seeks cancellation of the said patta.

¶21

Let me not enter into a detailed discussion of the facts or the merits of the case. In view of the nature of the order passed, notice is not directed to the fourth respondent.

¶22

Heard Mr.T.M.Madasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.

¶23

The petitioner had given a representation to the third respondent/ the Tahsildar, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District on 18.09.2021. He had also given representation to the first and second respondents also.

¶24

But at any rate, let the Tahsildar/the third respondent enquired into the representation, issue notice to the petitioner, issue notice to the fourth respondent and thereafter pass necessary orders. The petitioner will have to work his way up only through the Revenue Department and the Writ Court is not the proper forum.

¶25

The Tahsildar is called upon to pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner after following due procedure within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Nsr

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.1137 of 2022

¶31

correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirengam Revenue Division, Tiruchirappalli District. 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-2587[F] dated 27/01/2022 ) W.P.(MD).No.1137 of 2022 25.01.2022 (2/2) RK(09/02/2022) 3P 5C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

Sabestin v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabestin 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

Ramson Farm Thro Its Partners Vs the District Revenue Officer

Sundarammal S Vs the District Collector

Aravan Vs the District Collector

Muthulakshmi Vs Thenammal, W/o.Late.Arunachalam

Ayupkhan @ Karunanithi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Kannadasan.T Vs the Regional Manager