J.Jayalakshmi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2024, consequently direct the 4^th respondent to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 7600 sq.mtrs, comprised in S.No.134 Part (S.No.134/1A1A1) in Koladi Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District by fixing outer time limit.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): K.N.Nataraj For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl. G.P. for R1 to R4

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2024, consequently direct the 4^th respondent to issue patta to the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 7600 sq.mtrs, comprised in S.No.134 Part (S.No.134/1A1A1) in Koladi Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District by fixing outer time limit.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land measuring 7600 sq.mts, comprised in S.No.134 Part (S.No.134/1A1A1) in Koladi Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District. Petitioner purchased the same on 30.01.1982 from one Mrs.Sarojini Ammal vide document Nos.245 and 302 of 1982. Proceedings were initiated under section 9(5) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, after leaving 500 sq.mts as petitioner's family entitlement by the Assistant Commissioner, ULT (Competent Authority (ULC), Thiruvallur District, Poonamallee in Na.Ka.S.R.800/95, dated 15.11.1995 in respect of her land in S.No.134/1A1A1 to the extent of 159 cents. Against the said proceedings the petitioner filed W.P.No.35781 of 2003 and the same was allowed by this court on 27.10.2017, directing the respondents to terminate the ULT proceedings and hand over possession of petitioner's land to her. Aggrieved against such order, the Government filed W.A.No.886 of 2018, and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court affirming the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.35781 of 2003. Against the final order passed in writ appeal, no appeal has

¶20

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

¶21

been preferred before the Apex Court. Hence, the matter has reached its finality.

¶22

3.It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in continuous and lawful possession of the property and the authorities are yet to take possession under section 10(6) of the ULC Act. Petitioner made a representation to the authorities concerned on 04.11.2024, to issue patta. However, till date, it has not been acted upon. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶23

At the outset, it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader f or respondents that the State is contemplating to prefer an appeal against the Division Bench Order. However, to the question as to whether any appeal has been preferred, the learned counsel for the respondent would only submit that it is only at the stage of contemplation and no appeal has been filed as of now. When it was indicated that mere contemplation may not be adequate to hold back considering of the representation, the learned Spl. Govt. Pleader submitted that the above representation would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶24

In view of the same, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.11.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons/stake holders, including rival claimants, if any, within a period of eight (8)

¶25

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

¶26

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶27

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶28

20.06.2025

¶29

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No msr

¶30

To

¶31