Dismissed

Rajendran C v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Jan 2022WP(MD)/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 which sought to quash a summons issued for an enquiry into the petitioner's land holding. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the notice called for explanation and did not warrant judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.85 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.(MD) No.85 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.74 of 2022

¶6

C.Rajendran ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Sub Collector, Office of the Sub Collector, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶9

3.The Tahsildar, Periyakulam Taluk Office, Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, pertaining to the impugned summon, issued by the second respondent on 29.12.2021 in Na.Ka.No.4575/2021/A1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to forbear the respondents from disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property, situated in S.Nos.654/2 and 654/3 to the entire extent of 4 acres (0.81.0 Ares + 0.81.0 Ares respectively), which covered in Patta No.8730, in Jeyamangalam Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Neelamegam For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The writ petition questions a summons issued by the second respondent calling the petitioner for an enquiry with respect to the patta granted to the petitioner for the lands held by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to explain the circumstances of the holding to the authorities. The Court cannot enter into any discussion on the same. There is a duty cast on the petitioner to attend the enquiry. It is only a notice calling the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ come forward for an enquiry. The petitioner is advised to attend

¶14

1/2

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.85 of 2022

¶16

the enquiry. The writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶18

sji

¶19

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

¶20

To 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Sub Collector, Office of the Sub Collector, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶21

3.The Tahsildar, Periyakulam Taluk Office, Periyakulam, Theni District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-582[F] dated 06/01/2022 )

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.85 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.74 of 2022 05.01.2022

¶23

AP (19.01.2022) 2P 5C

¶24

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

¶25

2/2

Rajendran C v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran C 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

Reeta Vs the Block Development Officer

Sankiliammal Vs the District Collector

Sirajudeen Ali.a Vs the Sub-Registrar

Sukisha. K Vs the Principal Secretary

Mittalal.B Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Balakrishnan Vs the Regional Passport Officer