← Library
Madras High CourtWP/10246/2017disposed of

Veeraraghavan, S/O.Dilli Naidu v. The District Collector

2017-04-25Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.04.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.10246 of 2017 Veeraraghavan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

2. The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District,

3. D.Rose ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 03.01.2017 to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to issue individual Patta on Petitioner's name by deleting the name of 3rd Respondent namely Mr.Rose issued in Patta No.81 with regard to village Survey No.219/6 dated 16.05.1995 of house site situated in Village No.177, Araneri Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, the then Chingleput M.G.R. District now Kancheepuram District.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.Era Premnath, Government Advocate (R1 & R2)

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 03.01.2017 to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to issue individual Patta on petitioner's name by deleting the name of 3rd Respondent issued in Patta No.81 with regard to village Survey No.219/6 dated 16.05.1995 with regard to the house site situated in Village No.177, Araneri Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, the then Chingleput M.G.R. District, now Kancheepuram District.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner gave a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram to issue a separate patta by deleting the name of the 3rd respondent as early as on 20.03.2006. The Revenue Divisional Officer had forwarded the representation to the 2nd respondent for passing necessary orders, however, till today, no order has been passed by the respondents.

3.Mr.Era Premnath, learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the respondents 1 & 2 may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving notice to the 3rd respondent.

4.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 respondents 1 & 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2017 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the 3rd respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar va/mm To

1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District,

2. The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, +1cc to Mr.R.Balasubramanian,Advocate sr.24774 W.P.No.10246 of 2017 lrs(co) ss(2/5/2017)