Disposed

P.S.Bhaskar v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Feb 2025WP/3286/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to decide his representation seeking reclassification of his plot from government land to private land and fixation of its guideline value. Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Tahsildar to pass orders on the representation within three weeks, followed by consideration by registration authorities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fifth respondent (Tahsildar) to pass orders on representation dated 26.3.2018 within three weeks; respondents 1-4 to fix guideline value within four weeks thereafter. No costs.

P.S.Bhaskar Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.02.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

P.S.Bhaskar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George,

¶10

Chennai 600 009

¶11

The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028

¶12

The District Registrar, Chennai South, Chennai 600 015.

¶13

The Sub Registrar, Avadi, Chennai 600 054

¶14

The Tahsildar, Avadi, Chennai 600 054

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

1/7

¶18

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

¶19

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass

¶20

orders on the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2018 within a time frame that would be fixed by this Honourable Court

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus to the second

¶24

respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.3.2018 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶25

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondents.

¶26

3. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing plot No.34, Sai Nagar Layout comprised in old S.No.420/1B and Survey No.420/12 covered by

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

¶30

patta No.3193, Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur Sub~Registration District, Registration District Chennai was acquired by him by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1997 vide doc.No.4839 of 1997 on the file of the fourth respondent for a valid sale consideration. When the petitioner verified the guideline value of the above mentioned plot through the registration department Website, he came to know that the survey Number of the petitioner's property has been mentioned as “Government Land”. The petitioner verified the same also with the 3 rd respondent and he was informed that the said property has been acquired for the purpose of road expansion. However, the said property has not been utilized for the purpose, for which, it was acquired.

¶31

4. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation dated 26.3.2018 to the second respondent seeking to determine the prevailing guideline value of the said property and to carry out correction in its classification from -government land- to -private land-. Since the same did not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶32

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

¶34

5. Despite receiving the representation dated 26.3.2018, the second respondent has not yet passed orders on the same. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief. Ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the fifth respondent, who is the Competent Authority to consider the said representation. This Court also takes into consideration the earlier order passed in WP No.,34693 of 2024 dated 25.11.2024 wherein the brother of the petitioner approached this Court and sought for the same relief.

¶35

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a copy of the said representation dated 26.3.2018 to the fifth respondent for reclassification of the said property from -government landto -private land-, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of a copy of the said representation, the fifth respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three weeks therefrom. After necessary orders are passed by the fifth respondent, within a period of one week from the date of reclassification, the petitioner shall make a representation to respondents 1 to 4 to fix the guideline value and this

¶36

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

¶38

representation shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks therefrom. No costs.

¶39

07.02.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order rka

¶40

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

¶42

¶43

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶44

The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028

¶45

The District Registrar, Chennai South, Chennai 600 015.

¶46

The Sub Registrar, Avadi, Chennai 600 054

¶47

The Tahsildar, Avadi, Chennai 600 054

¶48

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

¶50

N. ANAND VENKATESH.J,

rka

W.P.No.3286 of 2025

Dated: 07.02.2025

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.S.Bhaskar v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Bhaskar v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

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

Dr.T.K.Sathia Seelan Vs the District Registrar-Administration

B.Raju Vs the Tahsildar

M.Velmurugan Vs the Commissioner of Land Administration

Susila and another Vs S.Jagajothi

Uppala Thozhilalar Sangam Vs C.Raghu and 2 others

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs the Inspector General of Registration