Madras High CourtWP/5527/2017disposed of

Sivagnanam, v. The Tahsildar,

2017-03-06Honourable Mr Justice B. Rajendran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 06.03.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P. No.5527 of 2017 Sivagnanam .. Petitioner Vs.

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

.. Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2017 and issue patta to the petitioner at the earliest. For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy Government Advocate

O R D E R

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2017 and issue patta to him at the earliest.

3. The petitioner purchased the property in Grama Nathan Survey No.132/7 measuring to an extent of 1742 sq.ft., out of 4.06.5 Hec. vide Document No.199/2015 and another piece of land in Grama Nathan No.75 in Survey No.132/7 vide Document No.105/2015 on the file of Sub Registrar, Kadaladi and Registration District of Thiruvannamalai. After purchase, he applied for patta on 19.05.2015, 05.06.2015 and 09.06.2015 and for measuring the said properties, he paid necessary fees. But, the respondent failed to measure the properties and issue patta to him. However, he filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.13298 of 2016 seeking to consider his representation dated 19.05.2015. This Court, by order dated 11.04.2016, directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.05.

2015 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to him as well as to the necessary parties. Thereafter, the respondent by its proceedings dated 08.07.2016 measured the land and directed the petitioner to apply for patta. Inspite of it, the respondent has not chosen to issue patta to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied, if his representation is directed to be considered and appropriate orders are passed as expeditiously as possible.

5. Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has got no serious objection for directing the respondent, who is the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the respondent, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.01.2017, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

7.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.14738/17 +1cc to Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian, Advocate SR.No.14423/17 W.P. No.5527 of 2017 SDR 22.03.2017