Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus forbearing authorities from allotting his property to any other purpose after his patta claim was rejected by the Tahsildar and the rejection was confirmed in appeal. The Court held the relief could not be granted and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.1875 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No. 1875 of 2021 &
W.M.P.No. 2120 of 2021
P.Gopal ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector Perambalur District, Perambalur,
2.The Tahsildar Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.
3.The Block Developement Officer Veppur Union, Perambalur District.
4.The Panchayat President Ogalur, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.
1/6
W.P.No.1875 of 2021
5.K.mahalingam
6.Chinnadurai
7.R.Jayaraj
8.Sivaram
9.Ramesh
...Respondents
(R5 to R9 impleaded by order dated 11.11.2024 in WMP/8447/2021 in WP/1875/2021)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from allotting the petitioners
property comprising in S.No.21 measuring 2 cents situated at
Kalanvasal Village, Ogalur Panchayat, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District, to any other purpose based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.01.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Rajendiran
For Respondents : Mr. A.Selvendran 1 to 4 Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr. G.Ilayaraja 5 to 9
2/6
W.P.No.1875 of 2021
O R D E R
In the earlier Writ Petition it has been clearly held by the learned Judge that the representation of the petitioner seeking patta had been rejected by the 2nd respondent, namely, Tahshildar by proceedings dated 05.11.2020 and the petitioner was directed to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. The learned Judge also protected the possession of the petitioner's property by passing the following order:
“Insofar as the attempt made by certain persons to
take possession of the property, the first and second respondents are directed to ensure that nobody takes illegal possession of the property and if any law and order problem is created, the Inspector of Police of Mangalamedu Police Station is directed to take action against the concerned persons and ensure that peace is maintained.”
3/6
W.P.No.1875 of 2021
been rejected though the same has not been mentioned in the Writ Petition.
the respondents from allotting the property. Such a relief cannot be granted in the light of the fact that the relief had been rejected in the writ petition and confirmed in an appeal. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
11.11.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
To
4/6
W.P.No.1875 of 2021
1.The District Collector Perambalur District, Perambalur,
2.The Tahsildar Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.
3.The Block Developement Officer Veppur Union, Perambalur District.
4.The Panchayat President Ogalur, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.
P.T. ASHA, J,
5/6
W.P.No.1875 of 2021
kan
W.P.No. 1875 of 2021
11.11.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether mandamus could issue restraining respondents from allotting the petitioner's property when his patta claim had been rejected and confirmed in appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Gopal
The District Collector Perambalur District, Perambalur
The Tahsildar Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District
The Block Developement Officer Veppur Union, Perambalur District
The Panchayat President Ogalur, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District
K.mahalingam
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
