Allowed

Mulla Taher Bhai v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC2 Dec 2024WP/24189/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct a survey enquiry after his representation remained unacted upon for four years. The court held the officer failed to perform statutory duty and issued specific directions.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry, issue notice, afford hearing, and pass speaking orders within 8 weeks.

Mulla Taher Bhai Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.24189 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 02.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No. 24189 of 2023

Mulla Taher Bhai

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Revenue Divisional Officer Chennai South, Guindy, Chennai 32. 2.The Tahsildar Sholinganallur, No.3, First Street, Kumaran Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai 119 ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to conduct the enquiry in the file No. Na.Ka. No.A2/ 2576/ 2020 dated 08.02.2021 after affording opportunities to the petitioner.

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.24189 of 2023

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Ravindran For Respondents : Mr. M.R.Gokul Krishnan 1 & 2 Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner of the Plot

¶18

Nos.19 and 19 A, measuring 4 grounds 1630 Sq.ft., comprised in R.S.No.312/2 (Part), present Survey No.312/14, Sri Venkateswara

¶19

Colony, Nehru Nagar, Kottivakkam Village, Chennai.

¶20

The larger extent of the property belonged to T.C.Subbaraju

¶21

and R.Venugopal. They had developed the layout, namely, Sri Venkateswara Colony (Nehru Nagar). The aforesaid properties were sold to one Dr.V.S.Chandrasekhar on 22.12.1965. He sold the same to

¶22

one Ganeshlal Gopilal on 27.10.1989. From the said Ganeshlal Gopilal, the petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 30.05.2005.

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.24189 of 2023

¶26

The petitioner would submit that the original land owners had

¶27

retained a portion of the lands promoted by them and the unsold plots were enjoyed by the legal representatives of the original land owners. One of the legal representatives, namely, Kamala Prakash, had executed a general power of attorney in respect of her share which was wrongly shown to be situated in a part of the petitioner's land. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.192 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur, for a permanent injunction and to cancel the general power of attorney. The suit was decreed in his favour on 14.11.2019, against which there was no appeal.

¶28

Meanwhile, when the petitioner had checked online, he

¶29

discovered that the patta issued to him had been cancelled and had reflected the name of the legal representatives of the original land owners.

¶30

3/7

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.24189 of 2023

¶33

The petitioner would submit that he had not received any

¶34

notice of enquiry before the change was effected. Therefore, he sent a detailed representation dated 23.10.2020, calling upon the 1^st respondent to conduct enquiry and cancel patta. This application has been kept pending since then. Once again the petitioner sent a reminder on 08.02.2021, to expedite the hearing. However, there was no response. Thus aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the

¶36

records.

¶37

It is rather unfortunate that the 1^st respondent has failed to take up for consideration the representation made by the petitioner dated 23.10.2020, although 4 years have lapsed since the date of the representation. The 1^st respondent has failed to perform his statutory duty cast upon him.

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.24189 of 2023

¶41

Therefore, a mandamus is issued to the 1^st respondent to

¶42

conduct enquiry based on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.10.2020, which is once again renewed on 08.02.2021, by issuing notice, affording personal hearing to the petitioner to put forth his case as well as the documents and pass speaking orders, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of a rejection, speaking order shall be passed.

¶43

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶44

02.12.2024

¶45

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

¶46

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

¶47

5/7

¶48

W.P.No.24189 of 2023

¶49

¶50

1.Revenue Divisional Officer Chennai South, Guindy, Chennai 32.

¶51

2.The Tahsildar Sholinganallur, No.3, First Street, Kumaran Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai 119

¶52

6/7

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.24189 of 2023

¶55

P.T. ASHA, J,

¶56

kan

¶57

W.P.No. 24189 of 2023

¶58

02.12.2024

¶59

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

¶60

7/7

Mulla Taher Bhai v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulla Taher Bhai v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

S.Jayasunder Vs Subhitha Lakshmi

G.Anuradha Vs the Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner

Krishnamoorthy Vs the District Collector

Shakkthi, Vs the District Collector

Mohamed Salim.a Vs the Sub Registrar

R.Mahaboobkhan Vs the District Collector