Disposed

C.Nachiyar v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Dec 2022WP(MD)/14645/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench observed that a civil dispute existed between the petitioners and private respondents but, having found the dispute resolved by a final decree, directed the petitioners to submit a fresh representation for land survey to the 2nd respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to give fresh representation within two weeks. Second respondent to consider such representation within four weeks and issue notice to all parties thereafter.

C.Nachiyar Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.14645 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.14645 of 2013

¶7

1.C.Nachiyar

¶8

2.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar

3.C.Karthikeyan

4.Sasikala Ponnu

5.Shri.Gothai

(Represented through their Power Agent)

¶13

1.A.Asokar

¶14

2.R.Nagarajan ... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶17

2.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶18

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

¶19

1/5

¶20

W.P(MD)No.14645 of 2013

¶21

3.The Tahsildar, Land and Survey Department, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.E.Natasen

5.A.Kabeyreyal

6.A.Kulathairaj

7.P.Muthukumaravel ... Respondents

¶26

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 26.06.2013 given to the respondents for surveying and earmarking their Patta Lands in (1) T.S No. 44/1 Patta No. FH-1514-0.06.97 Ares (2) T.S.No.44/2 patta No.FH-1515-0.06.77 Ares (3) T.S No. 44/3 Patta No. FH-845 0.02.75 Ares (4) T.S No.44/4 Patta No. FH-1516 - 0.09.48 Ares and (5) T.S No.44/5 Patta No. FH-1517 0.05.03 Ares.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For R1 - R3 : M/s.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader For R4 : No Appearance

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.14645 of 2013

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The present writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners, dated 26.06.2013 for surveying and earmarking the boundaries of the various lands belonging to the writ petitioners.

¶33

M/s.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions submits that there are civil dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents in this writ petition.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the civil dispute between the parties in O.S.No.180 of 2011 had ended by a judgment and decree, dated 27.07.2015 made by the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal and there are no further appeal filed against the same.

¶35

The petitioners are directed to give fresh representation to the 2^nd respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2^nd respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from

¶36

3/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.14645 of 2013

¶39

the date of receipt of such representation and if decides to proceed any further, shall issue notice to all the parties and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter.

¶40

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶41

05.12.2022

¶42

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶43

¶44

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶45

2.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶46

3.The Tahsildar, Land and Survey Department, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶47

4/5

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.14645 of 2013

¶50

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶51

gbg

¶52

Order made in W.P(MD)No.14645 of 2013

¶53

Dated: 05.12.2022

¶54

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Nachiyar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Nachiyar 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

The Managing Director Vs Kumar

The Managing Director Vs K.a.Akash

Thilagavathy Vs Anitha

K.Rajagopal, Vs the Assistant Executive-

M.Pandi, S/O. Munisamy Nadar, Vs the District Collector

K. Sreedharan Nair, Vs the Joint Director of