Dismissed

Muthukrishnan. M v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Jan 2023WP(MD)/675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the allotment of house sites to landless beneficiaries. The petitioner, acting pro bono, sought mandamus for alternative site assignment. The court dismissed the petition as the beneficiaries failed to approach authorities seeking alternative sites before approaching the court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the beneficiaries to approach the authority concerned for the alternative site.

Muthukrishnan. M Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

M.Muthukrishnan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, St. George Fort,

¶12

Chennai 9.

¶13

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

3.The District Revenue Officer (RDO), O/o. District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli District.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

¶19

5.The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk Office, Tirunelveli District.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 5 to provide Assignment of house site to 12 landless poor people (list mentioned in para No.5 of the affidavit) in the alternative place at S.No.17/4, Reddiyarpatti Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District based on the free house site patta issued in Na.Ka.No.A6/804/2005, dated 23.07.2010 by the 5^th respondent by considering the representation dated 28.05.2022 made by the petitioner within the time stipulate by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 5 to provide Assignment of house site to 12

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

¶30

landless poor people in the alternative place at S.No.17/4, Reddiyarpatti Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District based on the free house site patta issued in Na.Ka.No.A6/804/2005, dated 23.07.2010, by the 5^th respondent, by considering the representation dated 28.05.2022 made by the petitioner within a time frame.

¶31

2 . Heard Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶32

3 . By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶33

4 . The writ petitioner has filed the writ petition in the guise of pro bono public representing for the 12 landless people. According to the petitioner, though free house site pattas were issued in the year 2010 to the beneficiaries, till date, no assignment of house site were allotted to them. Hence, the petitioner made several representations, seeking allotment of house site. However, no

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

¶37

steps have been taken by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed this

¶38

Writ Petition.

¶39

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that when the aggrieved persons have not approached this Court seeking for alternative site, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶40

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the beneficiaries, to approach the authority concerned for the alternative site. No costs.

¶41

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 11.01.2023

¶42

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶43

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

¶46

¶47

1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai 9.

¶48

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶49

3.The District Revenue Officer (RDO), O/o. District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District.

¶50

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli District.

¶51

5.The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk Office, Tirunelveli District.

¶52

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

¶56

and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶57

vsm

¶58

W.P.(MD) No.675 of 2023

¶59

11.01.2023

¶60

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶61

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

Muthukrishnan. M v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukrishnan. M v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Johnsirajam.C Vs The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat

Lenin.M Vs The Authorised Officer

Veeramani Vs The District Collector

Sevugaperumal.G Vs The Tahsildar

Pandian Vs The District Collector

Murugan.M Vs The District collector