Disposed

M.Perumal v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Dec 2023WP/35097/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2023 regarding the transfer of a Patta on merits, after giving notice to all parties. The court fixed a two-month timeline for action and imposed a penalty cost of Rs. 1,00,000 for default.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 25.10.2023 on merits and pass appropriate orders within two months, failing which a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 shall be paya

M.Perumal Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

M.Perumal

... Petitioner

versus

1.The District Collector, Tirupattur District, Tirupattur.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupattur.

¶12

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Chinnaveppampattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupattur District.

¶13

4.Murugesan

¶14

.....Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to transfer the Patta bearing No.14902 in the petitioner's name in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.27/2D measuring to an extent of 1.27 Acres situated at Chinnaveppampattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupattur District, by

¶16

Pg.Nos.1/6

¶17

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

¶18

this Court.

¶19

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

¶20

considering the representation dated 25.10.2023, within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Mr.V.Veluchamy, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts

¶24

notice for respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is being passed as against the fourth respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to transfer the Patta bearing No.14902 in the name of the petitioner in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.27/2D measuring an extent of 1.27 Acres situated at Chinnaveppampattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupattur District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2023, within a time as stipulated by this Court.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the

¶27

Pg.Nos.2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

¶30

petitioner had given several representations to the respondents, but the respondents have not considered the same, and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30599 of 2014 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 24.11.2014 disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits. While so, the respondents conducted an enquiry and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that civil suit is pending between the parties. While so, after disposal of the civil suit, once again the petitioner has given a representation dated 25.10.2023 to the respondents for the relief as stated above. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶31

4.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents

¶32

1 to 3 submitted that the respondents will take necessary action on the petitioner's representation forthwith.

¶33

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶34

Pg.Nos.3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

¶37

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and rival claimants/interested parties, and after conducting enquiry in the manner known to law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the second respondent shall pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the petitioner. It is made clear that the second respondent shall pay the costs from his/her salary.

¶38

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

20.12.2023

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ms

¶42

Pg.Nos.4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

¶45

¶46

1.The District Collector, Tirupattur District, Tirupattur.

¶47

2.The Tahsildar, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupattur.

¶48

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Chinnaveppampattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupattur District.

¶49

Pg.Nos.5/6

¶50

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

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

W.P.No.35097 of 2023

20.12.2023

Pg.Nos.6/6

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

M.Perumal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Perumal 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

Baskaran Vs The Chennai Metro Rail Limited

Mohammed Riyasatullah Vs State of Tamil Nadu

A/m.Sri Varadharaja Perumal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Jayalakshmi Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

Matheswari Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Jayavelu Vs the Thasildar