Disposed

The President v. The Estate Officer

Madras HC16 Feb 2023WP/4514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order disposing of a writ petition seeking direction to dispose of an eviction petition. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's eviction plea, afford hearing to the second respondent, and pass an order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's petition dated 22/8/2022, afford hearing to the second respondent, and pass appropriate orders within two months.

The President Vs The Estate Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.4514 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 16/2/2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.4514 of 2023

¶7

The President (K.Syed Abhas Military Line Pallivasal Palyamkottai Tirunelveli 627 002.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Estate Officer Tamil Nadu Wakf Board No.1 Jaffer Syrang Street Vallal Seethakathi Nagar Chennai 1.

¶11

Sheik Mohammed Shah ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶13

praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petition dated 22/8/2022 filed by the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 and

¶14

under Sections 4, 5 and 7 Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 33/2010.

¶15

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

¶16

Page No:1/4

¶17

Writ Petition No.4514 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioners ... Mr.N.A.Nasir Hussain For respondents ... Mr.C.Shankar for R.1

¶19

- - - - -

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to

¶22

dispose of the petition dated 22/8/2022 filed by the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 and

¶23

under Sections 4, 5 and 7 Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 33/2010.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that Military Line Pallivasal, Palayamkottai, Tirunelvei, is a registered and notified wakf, under the control of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The second respondent has leased out the wakf property for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.11,100/and the period of lease expired on 31/8/2019. Therefore, he was called upon to vacate and hand over the possession, vide, legal notice, dated 8/11/2021, to which he has given an untenable reply. Hence, a petition has been filed before the first respondent for eviction under the Public Premises Act, on 28/2/2022. Since the same has not been considered so far, petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein.

¶25

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

¶26

Page No:2/4

¶27

Writ Petition No.4514 of 2023

¶28

Heard Mr.N.A.Nasir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

Mr.C.Shankar, learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board takes notice on behalf of the first respondent.

¶30

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate order will be passed in accordance with law.

¶32

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this writ petition, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the petition of the petitioner dated 22/8/2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the second respondent.

¶33

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J

¶34

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

¶35

Page No:3/4

¶36

Writ Petition No.4514 of 2023

¶37

mvs.

¶38

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶39

costs.

¶40

16/2/2023

¶41

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order

¶42

mvs.

¶43

¶44

The Commissioner Chengalpattu Municipality Kancheepuram District.

¶45

W.P.No.4514 of 2023

¶46

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

¶47

Page No:4/4

The President v. The Estate Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President v. The Estate Officer

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

D.Poornima Rangarajan Vs The Inspector of Panchayat/The District Collector

Pavan Konduru Vs The District Collector

K.Venugopal Vs The Commissioner

S.Mohammed Akbar Vs S.Abdullah

N.Rajan Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Olympia Infratech Vs H.Prakash Rao and 5 others