Disposed

Y.Vimalabai v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Jul 2023WP/19883/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner alleged forced execution of a settlement deed. The court directed the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry to determine the petitioner's entitlement to maintenance from the 3rd respondent within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to hold an enquiry, determine entitlement to maintenance, and dispose of the matter within eight weeks.

Y.Vimalabai Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.19883 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

W.P.No.19883 of 2023

Y.Vimalabai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector Chennai District Beach Road, George Town Chennai 600 001

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer 5-73, SH 112, Gandhi Nagar Anna Nagar West Extension Chennai 600 040

¶12

3.Y.Kavitha ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct 2^nd respondent to dispose the complaint dated 21.10.2022 within a stipulated time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Elango

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Bindran

¶15

Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.19883 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission

¶21

stage itself.

¶22

2.The petitioner's grievance is two fold:

¶23

a.she was forced to execute a settlement deed vis-a-vis her property in favour of her daughter, the 3^rd respondent; and

¶24

b.seeking cancellation of the settlement deed.

¶25

3.A representation was made to the 1^st respondent, who had promptly forwarded the same to the 2^nd respondent, the authority constituted under the Act.

¶26

4.Mr.M.Bindran, the learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice

¶27

for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶28

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the present the

¶29

2/4

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.19883 of 2023

¶32

petitioner only insists for maintenance and reserves her right to have the settlement deed cancelled later.

¶33

6.In view of the said statement, this Court directs the 2^nd respondent to hold

¶34

an enquiry and determine whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance, and if so, the quantum of maintenance payable by the 3^rd respondent after giving due and proper notice to the 3^rd respondent and dispose of the matter within a period of eight (8) weeks from today.

¶35

7.This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

06.07.2023

kas

1.The District Collector Chennai District Beach Road, George Town Chennai 600 001

¶40

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer 5-73, SH 112, Gandhi Nagar Anna Nagar West Extension Chennai 600 040

¶41

3/4

¶42

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

W.P.No.19883 of 2023

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

kas

W.P.No.19883 of 2023

06.07.2023

4/4

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

Y.Vimalabai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Vimalabai 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

Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars Pvt. Ltd., Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Generation and

M/s.Lotus Clean Power venture P Ltd. Vs The Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution

S.Ragavendhiran Vs The Deputy General Manager

Raj Vs The District Collector

Hemavathi.E Vs The TamilNadu Medical council

Ravichandran Vs the Regional Passport Officer