Disposed

M.Velmurugan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC1 Apr 2024WP/4438/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged respondents 3 and 4 fraudulently obtained patta in other names despite his co-ownership and sought direction to consider his representation for enquiry. Court directed competent authority to consider representation after hearing both sides and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2024 and pass orders within two months; no costs.

M.Velmurugan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4438 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.4438 of 2024

M.Velmurugan

..... Petitioner

-Versus-

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Chennai Revenue Division, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶11

2.The Special Tahsildar, O/o.The Taluk Office,

¶12

Urban Planning Department, Madhavaram Taluk, Gandhi Main Road, Balaji Nagar, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶13

3.S.Alamelu 4.E.Arumugam 5.A.Gunal ..... Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2024 to conduct enquiry and file a report before this Court within a stipulated time.

¶15

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

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

W.P.No.4438 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Arun Kumar For Respondent (s) : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.S.Vijayakumar for R3 to R5

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.01.2024 to conduct an enquiry with regard to fraudulent patta issued in the name of Mrs.Rosammal and Mr.Arumugam and file a report before this court within the time to be stipulated by this court.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he is the co-owner of a property situated at S.No.372/1B1C (part), Town Survey No.18, Block No.32, Ward-B situated at Madhavaram Village along with respondents 3 to 5. However, respondents 3 and 4 had managed to get patta in the name of Rosammal and another fraudulently. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he gave a representation to conduct an enquiry on the fraudulent obtainment of patta and submit a report to the court, the same was not considered so far. Hence, the writ petition.

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

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

¶24

2 of 4

¶25

W.P.No.4438 of 2024

¶26

Considering the limited nature of the relief sought in the writ petition,

¶27

without going into the merits of the allegations made in the writ petition, this court directs the competent authority among the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner after giving an opportunity to both the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5, including personal hearing, if necessary, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions.

¶29

No costs.

¶30

01..04..2024

¶31

Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmk

¶32

¶33

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Chennai Revenue Division, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶34

2.The Special Tahsildar, O/o.The Taluk Office, Urban Planning Department, Madhavaram Taluk, Gandhi Main Road, Balaji Nagar, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 4

¶36

W.P.No.4438 of 2024

N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,

kmk

W.P.No.4438 of 2024

01..04..2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 of 4

M.Velmurugan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Velmurugan v. the 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

C.Sekar Vs Anuradha and 7 others

Mr.B.Venkateswaran Vs Mr.R.Avudaiappan

A.Jagadeesan Vs a.Srinivasan and 4 others

K.C. Raja Vs The Inspector General of

T.Gothai Vs the District Collector

Sheik Mohideen Vs The District Collector