K.Vijayan v. The District Collector, Collector Office, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Collector Office, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai.
Judgment
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.10698 of 2017 K.Vijayan ... Petitioner Vs.
The District Collector, Collector Office, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai.
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thirvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's patta transfer application dated 14.03.2017 and representation dated 12.04.2017 with respect to issue patta to the petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.162/1 to the extent of 0.84.5 cents situated at Vadapuzhuthiyur Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District based upon his remitted copy of the challan dated 14.03.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.K.L.Sekar For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, Government Advocate
O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's patta transfer application dated 14.03.2017 and representation dated 12.04.2017 with respect to issuance of patta to the petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.162/1 to the extent of 0.84.5 cents situated at Vadapuzhuthiyur Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District based upon his remitted copy of the challan dated 14.03.2017.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father is the owner of the above said land and that after his death, the petitioner had applied for issuance of patta in his name. Further, the learned counsel submitted that patta was not issued in favour of the petitioner's father. That apart, the learned counsel also submitted that inspite of the application given by the petitioner for issuance of patta on 14.03.2017 and representation dated 12.04.2017, the respondents have not passed any orders so far.
Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents submitted that the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's application, on production of all the relevant documents in accordance with law.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the petitioner to furnish all the relevant documents to the 2nd respondent and on production of the documents, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the documents by the petitioner.
Operative part
With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Collector Office, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thirvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. +1cc to Mr.Sekar, Advocate, S.R.No.25547 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.26387 mg(co) rmp(05/05/17) W.P.No.10698 of 2017
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 27 Apr 2017. The bench was M DURAISWAMY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.