Dismissed

Veeramanikandan.P v. the Manager Marketing and Service

Madras HC6 Mar 2024WP(MD)/13690/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a letter refusing conveyance of a plot and direction to receive balance payment and execute sale documents. On hearing, counsel reported petitioner's death; respondent stated plot was name-transferred to petitioner's father and sale deed issued. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed, miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs.

Veeramanikandan.P Vs the Manager Marketing and Service — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13690 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13690 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10632 and 10634 of 2021

P.Veeramanikandan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Manager-Marketing & Service, Madurai Housing Unit, Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 625 016. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order of the respondent in Letter No.A3/MII-180/2014 dated 24.06.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to receive the balance amount payable by the petitioner and execute conveyances and documents in favour of the petitioner.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan

¶15

W.P(MD)No.13690 of 2021

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.R.Siva Kumar Standing Counsel

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The Writ Petition is directed against the letter dated 24.06.2021 issued by the respondent in Letter No.A3/MII-180/2014 and for further direction to the respondent to receive the balance amount payable by the writ petitioner and execute conveyances and documents in favour of the writ petitioner.

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner was reported dead.

¶20

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that even in their counter they have stated that the plot was name transferred in favour of the writ petitioner's father R.Pandiaraj on 13.06.2023 and the sale deed for the plot was issued on 20.06.2023.

¶21

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P(MD)No.13690 of 2021

¶23

Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶24

06.03.2024

¶25

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No csm

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.13690 of 2021

¶28

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

¶29

csm

¶30

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.13690 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10632 and 10634 of 2021

¶31

Dated : 06.03.2024

¶32

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

Veeramanikandan.P v. the Manager Marketing and Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeramanikandan.P v. the Manager Marketing and Service

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

Thoubeek Raja.N Vs the Commissioner

Sundar Raj Vs Banu

Servaran Vs Mariammal

Senthur Pandian.P Vs the District Collector

Rajan Tennyson Vs the Regional Passport Officer

M/S.Arjun Pulp and Papers (I) Private Limited, Vs Visakan Impex