Disposed

M.Michael, v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Sept 2024WP/24993/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order directing the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and cancel their patta. At hearing counsel restricted the prayer and sought liberty to approach the Tahsildar afresh. The court permitted fresh representations within two weeks and directed the Tahsildar to hold enquiry with personal hearing and decide on merits within twelve weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Michael, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012 M.P.Nos.1 + 1 +1 and 2 + 2 +2 of 2012

¶7

M.Michael ...Petitioner in W.P.No.24993 of 2012 Vanitha Michael ...Petitioner in W.P.No.24994 of 2012 E.Ravishankar ...Petitioner in W.P.No.24995 of 2012

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram, Office of the District Revenue Officer, at Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

¶11

The Tahsildar Sriperumbudur Taluk, Office of the Tahsildar Sriperumbudur Taluk, Sriperumbudur Town, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

N.S.Sathiyavan, Power of Attorney Agent of P.Guru Vittal,

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶16

No.148/A, 4^th Main Road, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Errukkenchery, Chennai – 118.

¶17

...Respondents in all W.P.s

¶18

Prayer in W.P.No.24993 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent bearing proceedings in Na.Ka.No.32911 / 2011 N 4 dated 12.08.2012 and quash the same and consequently forbear the third respondent from in any manner proceeding with the Patta of the property being farmland together with farmhouse, fencing and fruit bearing trees therein comprised in Survey No.34/2(part) land of an extent of 49.51 cents out of a total extent of acre 1.46 cents, situated in Village No.105 Sriperumbudur, bearing present Patta No.739, situated in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶19

Prayer in W.P.No.24994 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent bearing proceedings in Na.Ka.No.32911 / 2011 N 4 dated 12.08.2012 and quash the same and consequently forbear the third respondent from in any manner proceeding with the Patta of the property being land comprised in Survey No.34/2(part) land of an extent of 23.07 cents out of a total extent of acre 1.46 cents, situated in Village No.105 Sriperumbudur Village, Town and Taluk, Kancheepuram District, bearing present Patta No.1629.

¶20

2/8

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶23

Prayer in W.P.No.24995 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent bearing proceedings in Na.Ka.No.32911 / 2011 N 4 dated 12.08.2012 and quash the same and consequently forbear the third respondent from in any manner proceeding with the Patta of the property being farmland which comprises of full-grown fruit bearing trees, together with compound wall, fencing and farm-house, comprised in Survey No.34/5, admeasuring 50.3 cents and Survey No.34/6 admeasuring an extent of 56.06 cents in all an extent of acre 1.07 cents, bearing Patta No.742, situated in Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶24

In all W.P.s:

¶25

For Petitioners : M/s.A.Palaniappan

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, AGP for R1 to R3 No Appearance for R4

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

Since the issue involved in the present writ petitions are one and the same they are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶29

Assailing the order passed by the second respondent dated

¶30

3/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶33

12.08.2012 directing the third respondent to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioners, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein.

¶34

Though the notice was served on the fourth respondent, neither himself nor his counsel appeared before this Court. Considering the period of pendency of the writ petitions, the same are disposed of based on the materials available on record.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the various extent of land situated at Sriperumbudur Village, Town and Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Thereafter, the patta were also mutated in favour of the petitioners. Pursuant to the complaint given by the fourth respondent seeking to cancel the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, the second respondent vide impugned order dated 12.08.2012 had directed the third respondent to conduct enquiry between the parties and to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioners. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶36

4/8

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶39

Though the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions seeking

¶40

the aforesaid relief, however, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners restricted his prayer and sought permission of this Court to approach the third respondent for appropriate remedy.

¶41

Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶42

respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials placed on record.

¶43

In view of the limited request sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court without interfering with the order impugned, permits the petitioners to file fresh representations before the third respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the said representations, the third respondent is directed to conduct enquiry in terms of the impugned order dated 12.08.2012 passed by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners as well as the aggrieved

¶44

5/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶47

persons if any, including the fourth respondent within a period of twelve

¶48

(12) weeks thereafter.

¶49

With the above observation, these writ petitions are disposed of. No

¶50

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶51

12.09.2024

¶52

rap Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶53

6/8

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶56

To:

¶57

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

¶58

The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram, Office of the District Revenue Officer, at Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

¶59

The Tahsildar Sriperumbudur Taluk, Office of the Tahsildar Sriperumbudur Taluk, Sriperumbudur Town, Kancheepuram District.

¶60

7/8

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶63

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶64

rap

¶65

W.P.Nos.24993 to 24995 of 2012

¶66

12.09.2024

¶67

8/8

¶68

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

M.Michael, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Michael, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharma Medical Research Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Dharma Medical Research and Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

The Chief Financial Controller Vs The Ministry of Power

M. Vasudevan Vs the Commissioner

Ponmani Devi, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Elumalai, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu