Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderO R D E R By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55.K.Dhayal, Bakmarpettai, Murugabadi MadhuraPolur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District....RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1 to 4 respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2023 and further direct the respondents to…
Judgment
W.P.No.17925 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.07.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARW.P.No.17925 of 2024K.Elumalai... PetitionervsThe District CollectorThiruvannamalai District.
The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.
The TahsildarPolur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
Operative part
K.Dhayal, Bakmarpettai, Murugabadi MadhuraPolur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District....RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1 to 4 respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2023 and further direct the respondents to cancel patta No.79 and 1132 in respect of the property in 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17925 of 2024S.No.328/3A, 328/3B, Murugambadi Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District and issue a patta in the name of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.SajeevkumarFor Respondents :Mr.A.SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderO R D E R By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. It is the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father purchased 84½ cents out of total extent of 1.69acres in S.No.328 in the year 1977.
The remaining area was retained by the original vendor and sold to various persons in the year 2001. However, while issuing patta, the revenue authorities issued patta in respect of 0.76cents in the name of the petitioner's father, taking advantage of the revenue proceedings, the adjacent owners also sold the property to the others. Thereby, the petitioner has made representation to the respondents dated 23.08.2023 for cancelling the patta No.79 and 1132 in S.No.328/3A, 328/3B. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17925 of 20243. In such view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2023 and pass orders, on its own merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the writ petitioner and the person in whose name the patta already stood and also the subsequent purchasers or private respondents, if any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.4.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 09.07.2024Speaking order / Non-speaking orderIndex: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotshToThe District CollectorThiruvannamalai District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District. 4. The TahsildarPolur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17925 of 2024N.SATHISH KUMAR , J. tshW.P.No.17925 of 202409.07.20244/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: SelvendranSpecial Government PleaderO R D E R By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.