K.Ganesan, S/O.Kannan v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.04.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.9150 of 2017 K.Ganesan President, T.N. Ovt. Office Assistant and Basic Servants State Central Association, No.30/182, Bells Road, Chepauk, Chennai.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

3.The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to remove the classification as Maduvu in S.No.514/1B to an extent of 0.26.5 Ares (0.65 Cents) as per proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.27601/2015/A2 dated 27.10.2015 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta to the petitioner's Association in respect of Survey No.514/1B to an extent of 0.65 cents property situated at Varatharajapuram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2015 to the 3rd respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Paul Noble Deva Kumar 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 2nd respondent to remove the classification as Maduvu in S.No.514/1B measuring an extent of 0.26.5 Ares (0.65 Cents) in Varatharajapuram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, as per proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 27.10.2015 and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to issue patta to the petitioner's Association in respect of Survey No.514/1B to an extent of 0.65 cents property based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2015 to the 3rd respondent.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of his representation to the 3rd respondent to reclassify the lands, the respondents 2 & 3 have not considered the same and passed any orders so far.

3.Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner has not given the representation to the 2nd respondent, he may be directed to give a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent and thereafter, the respondents 2 & 3 may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. 4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the petitioner to give a representation to the 2nd respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents 2 & 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va

To 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

3.The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

+1cc to Mr.Paul Noble Deva Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.23175 (19/04/2017) W.P.No.9150 of 2017 RJ(CO) RS(18/04/2017)