Disposed

Natarajan K.S.R v. the Commissioner

Madras HC24 Feb 2022WP(MD)/3472/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records the petitioner's desire to proceed with the fair rent fixation hearing rather than quashing the notice. The court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to appear before the authority as per the notice timeline. The judgment is purely procedural.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before the 3rd respondent within specified time for fair rent fixation hearing; writ petition disposed of; no costs.

Natarajan K.S.R Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3472 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.02.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3472 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3044 and 3045 of 2022

K.S.R.Natarajan

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶13

The Fair Rent Fixation Committee,

¶14

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶15

3.The Executive Officer,

¶16

Arulmigu Puttu Urchava Vagaiyara Kattalai, Arulmigu Chockanathar Thirukovil, Puttuthoppu, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 07.02.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent in respect of the property situated in Survey No.74, Block No.72, Ward No.5, Chekkadi Street, Puttuthoppu, Madurai to an extent of 6,702 square feet and the superstructure put up thereon and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to permit the petitioner to put forth his case before taking a decision of fixing a fair rent for the said property.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

¶19

For R3 : Mr.M.Saravanan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Though the writ petition has been filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notice dated 07.02.2022, fixing the rent of Rs.41,99,925/-, the learned counsel for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/2

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.3472 of 2022

¶24

submits that the 3^rd respondent has issued the notice dated 16.02.2022 by calling upon the petitioner for personal hearing within a period of 15 days from 16.02.2022. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner would like to proceed with the proceeding before the 3^rd respondent.

¶25

2.Recording the above statement, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall appear before the official respondent within the specified time as mentioned in the notice dated 16.02.2022 and is at liberty to make submissions both on facts and law and the official respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 30 days therefrom. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(AD-I)

// True Copy //

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

¶33

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶34

The Fair Rent Fixation Committee, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.M.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-8594[F] dated 25/02/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-8716[F] dated 25/02/2022 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.3472 of 2022 24.02.2022

¶37

ark(CO) TR(17.03.2022) 2P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

2/2

Natarajan K.S.R v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natarajan K.S.R v. the Commissioner

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

Elambarithi Vs the Commissioner

Nagarajan .P Vs the Joint Commissioner

Muthukrishnan.M.R Vs the Commissioner

Subbiah.T.R Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Parasuraman M Vs the Joint Commissioner

Vallinayagam K Vs the Commissioner