Disposed

Grand Enterprises v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Jul 2023WP/5310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to include name in Chitta and effect Ryotwari Settlement on Freehold land. Court observed lack of proof for prior representations but granted liberty for fresh submission. Petition disposed with directions to Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry within twelve weeks and pass orders within twelve weeks of receiving representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit fresh representation. Revenue Divisional Officer directed to hold enquiry and pass final order within twelve weeks of receiving representation.

Grand Enterprises Vs Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.5310 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25-07-2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

WP No.5310 of 2023

¶7

Grand Enterprises, A registered Partnership Firm Having its Office at Grand Hotel, M.G.Road, Ernakulam,

¶8

Cochin, Kerala-682 011 Represented herein by its Partner and Authorised Signatory Mr.K.J.George.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, 'Ezhilagam', Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

WP No.5310 of 2023

¶16

3.The Collector of Nilgiris, Office of the District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

¶17

4.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

¶18

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

¶19

6.Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, more particularly the sixth respondent to expeditiously include the petitioner's name in the Chitta and effect 'Ryotwari Settlement' on the land, classified as 'Freehold' and admeasuring an extent of 1.14-1/2 acres in R.S.No.74/1C3 (Old Survey No.74), Town Survey No.29, in Ward 'F', Block 3 of Udhagamandalam Town and Taluk, Nilgiris.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.F.Manavalan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlaal, Additional Advocate General

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

WP No.5310 of 2023

¶27

Assisted by Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The writ on hand has been instituted to direct the respondents,

¶30

more particularly the sixth respondent to expeditiously include the petitioner's name in the Chitta and effect 'Ryotwari Settlement' on the land, classified as 'Freehold' and admeasuring an extent of 1.14-1/2 acres in R.S.No.74/1C3 (Old Survey No.74), Town Survey No.29, in Ward 'F', Block 3 of Udhagamandalam Town and Taluk, Nilgiris.

¶31

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the petitioner has not submitted any proper application to the Competent Authority for the purpose of considering the issues in consonance with the provisions of the Statutes and the Rules in force. In the absence of any such application, the Authority may not be in a position to take decision.

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

WP No.5310 of 2023

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

¶36

petitioner sent several representations to the Authorities. However, there is no proof to establish that the petitioner has sent representations to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned for the purpose of considering the issues in consonance with the provisions of the Statutes and the Rules in force.

¶37

May that as it be. If at all any representation has been received by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to send fresh representation setting out all the facts along with the documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of any such application/representation from the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris is directed to conduct an enquiry by affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned and thereafter take decision and pass final orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation from the petitioner.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

WP No.5310 of 2023

¶41

With the above liberty, the present writ petition stands

¶42

disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

25-07-2023

¶44

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn

¶45

¶46

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶47

2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, 'Ezhilagam', Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶48

3.The Collector of Nilgiris, Office of the District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

¶49

4.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

WP No.5310 of 2023

¶53

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

¶54

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶55

Svn

¶56

6.Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris-643 001.

WP 5310 of 2023

25-07-2023

Page 6 of 6

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

Grand Enterprises v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grand Enterprises v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

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

A.Baskaran Vs The District Collector

R.Elumalai Vs The Commissioner of revenue Administration

P.Parthiban Vs the District Revenue Officer

Kasturba Gandhi Kanya Gurukulam Vs Government of TamilNadu

P.Rajkumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

N.Sulochana Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer