Allowed

S. Sundaravadivel v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC4 Jul 2024WA/1834/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order dismissing the amendment application, and directed the correction of the village name in the prior order from Monagabadi to Tharamangalam. The time for considering the patta application was extended by six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Amendment of order allowed; time for considering patta application extended by six weeks.

S. Sundaravadivel Vs The Sub Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

S.Sundaravadivel

...Appellant

Vs.

1.The Sub-Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside

¶13

the order made in W.M.P.No.19379 of 2023 in W.P.No.6299 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.T.Kishorekumar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader

¶16

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. )

¶22

Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice

¶23

for the respondents.

¶24

2. With the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

¶25

3. The appellant sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application for grant of patta in respect of an extent of 5859 sq.f. of land situate in Old S.No.171/2, New S.No.347/25 of Tharamangalam Village. The writ petition came to be allowed on 03.03.2023 and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

¶26

5. Considering the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, this Court directs the 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 30.09.2022 and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

¶30

4. However, the appellant subsequently realized that the name of the village was typed as Monagabadi instead of Tharamangalam, hence he sought for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition and a consequential amendment of the order. The writ Court dismissed the application on the ground that it does not appear to be a typographical error.

¶31

5. No doubt, we find some negligence on the part of the appellant in filing the writ petition with a different village name. These mistakes occur due to development of technology, where the lawyers adopt cut and paste options in their computer, while drafting the writ petitions. We will also have to adjust to the technology and learn to live with it. We do not find any intentional commission or omission on the part of the learned counsel or the appellant.

¶32

6. Hence, this writ appeal stands allowed , the order of the writ Court dismissing the amendment application is set aside. The petition in W.M.P.No.19379 of 2023 will stand allowed. The name of the village will

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

¶36

stand amended as Tharamangalam instead of Monagabadi. The Registry is

¶37

directed to issue amended copy of the order. In view of the fact that considerable time has lapsed, the time granted by the writ Court to dispose of the representation vide order dated 03.03.2023 is extended for a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the amended order. No costs.

¶38

(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) dsa 04.07.2024 Index : No Internet : Yes Neutral Citation : No Speaking order

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

¶42

To:-

¶43

1.The Sub-Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

¶44

2.The Tahsildar, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

¶48

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶49

dsa

¶50

W.A.No.1834 of 2024

¶51

04.07.2024

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

S. Sundaravadivel v. The Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sundaravadivel v. The Sub 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

The Deputy Inspector General Vs S. Sangeetha

A.Karthikeyan Vs P.Bakkiyalakshmi

T.Sudharsan and 3 others Vs Vupputur Ramesh and Another

Gorantla Geosynthetics Private Limited Vs M/S.Akshaya Signature Homes Private Limited

R.Elumalai Vs The Commissioner of Revenue Administration

Srinivasan (Died) 1. Ramasamy Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)