Dismissed

M.Rahuman Beevi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC31 Mar 2023WP(MD)/16808/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing third respondent to issue joint patta for specific lands. Respondents stated lands were classified as Punjai Anatheenam, Neerpidi, and Arasu Poramboke Anatheenam, making the request ineligible. Petitioner did not appear; case dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for; the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

M.Rahuman Beevi, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.16808 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :31.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16808 of 2016

M.Rahuman Beevi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to issue joint patta in favour of the petitioner and other legal heirs of A.Mohamed in respect of the land in S.F.No.28 measuring 10.20 acres in Vengaloor Village and in S.F.No.79 and 80 measuring 5.35 acres in Meyyapuram in Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 26.08.2016.

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.16808 of 2016

¶16

For Petitioner :No appearance For Respondents :Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

At the hearing on 17.03.2023, it was recorded that there was no

¶19

representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was listed today under the caption for dismissal. Once again, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Special Government Pleader submits, on written instructions, that the relevant lands are classified in the following manner. The land bearing Survey No.28/A/2 is classified in the 'A' Register as Punjai Anatheenam. The land bearing Survey No.79/a/1 is classified as Neerpidi. The land bearing Survey No.80/3 is classified as Arasu Poramboke Anatheenam. Therefore, it is stated that the request of the petitioner for a joint patta cannot be considered.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.16808 of 2016

¶24

Upon taking note of the classification of the lands in respect of

¶25

which joint patta has been requested for by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for. Consequently, W.P.(MD).No.16808 of 2016 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶26

31.03.2023

¶27

NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sbn

¶28

¶29

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

¶30

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District.

¶31

3.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.16808 of 2016

¶35

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶36

sbn

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.16808 of 2016

¶38

31.03.2023

¶39

Page 4 of 4

¶40

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

M.Rahuman Beevi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rahuman Beevi, 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

P.Mahalakshmi Vs The District Revenue Officer cum Additional District Magistrate

P.Vijayan, Vs the District Revenue Officer

S.Alwin, S/O.Stephen Vs the Collector

Sarathambal Vs the Assistant Director of

Bholanath R.Shukla, Vs Airports Authority of India

A.Karuppayee, Vs the District Collector