Disposed

Mehar Khatoon v. The District Collector

Madras HC10 Jan 2023WP/632/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to issue patta for purchased land. The Court held that the application for patta should have been made to the Tahsildar, directing the latter to consider the claim on merits within eight weeks and dispose the writ petition accordingly. Note: Subject classification derived from context of property administration despite schema an

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application for patta on merits and pass necessary orders within eight weeks.

Mehar Khatoon Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.632 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :10.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.632 of 2023 and WMP.No.569 of 2023

Mehar Khatoon

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Walaja Taluk, Ranipet.

¶12

Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Walaja Taluk, Office of the Tahsildar, Walaja, Ranipet District. … Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue the patta pertaining to the petitioner's property namely all the piece of land in all measuring 15960 sq.ft comprised in Punja survey number 224 new survey No.224/1A bearing Plot No.2, situated at Vannivedu Village, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District, now Ranipet District within the sub registration district of Walaja and within

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.No.632 of 2023

¶17

the registration District of Arakkonam, after measuring the petitioner's property by metes and bounds and similarly after earmarking the said property by laying the boundary stones.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing

¶21

the respondents 1 to 3 to issue a patta pertaining to the petitioner's property namely all the piece of land in all measuring 15960 sq.ft comprised in Punja survey number 224 new survey No.224/1A bearing Plot No.2, situated at Vannivedu Village, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District, now Ranipet District within the sub registration district of Walaja and within the registration District of Arakkonam, after measuring the petitioner's property by metes and bounds and similarly after earmarking the said property by laying the boundary stones.

¶22

The petitioner claims that, she has purchased the property to the

¶23

extent of 15960 sq.ft comprised in Punja survey number 224 new survey No.224/1A bearing Plot No.2, situated at Vannivedu Village, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District, presently Ranipet District within the sub 2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.632 of 2023

¶26

registration district of Walaja and having purchased the property, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and in order to get patta, the petitioner has made an application on 16.11.2022 to the first respondent District Collector. The said application of the petitioner since has not been considered so far, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition to consider the said application and to pass necessary orders for issuance of patta to the petitioner.

¶27

Heard Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶28

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that, for issuance of patta, application should have been made to the second respondent Tahsildar, therefore, if such an application is made by the petitioner to the second respondent Tahsildar that would be considered and decided by the second respondent on merits and in accordance with law, he contended.

¶29

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

¶30

3/6

¶31

W.P.No.632 of 2023

¶32

I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed

¶33

before this Court.

¶34

In view of the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order:

¶35

That it is open to the petitioner to make an application to the second respondent Tahsildar seeking patta for the land, she claimed to have purchased and on receipt of such application, the second respondent Tahsildar shall consider the same and pass necessary orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

10.01.2023

¶38

Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mp

¶39

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

4/6

W.P.No.632 of 2023

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

¶44

The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Walaja Taluk, Ranipet.

¶45

Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Walaja Taluk, Office of the Tahsildar, Walaja, Ranipet District.

¶46

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

¶47

5/6

¶48

W.P.No.632 of 2023

¶49

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶50

¶51

Writ Petition No.632 of 2023

¶52

10.01.2023

¶53

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

¶54

6/6

Mehar Khatoon v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehar Khatoon 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

K.Savithri Vs The District Registrar

Swaminathan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Mohan Kumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Sivakami Vs The Tahsildar

M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Savariyammal Vs The Tahsildar