← Library
Madras High CourtWP/12024/2018disposed of

V.Seetharaman, v. District Collector,

2018-06-20Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.06.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.12024 of 2018 V.Seetharaman ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, Villupuram.

2.Sub Collector, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to comply the order of 1st respondent's order in Na.Ka.A1/17016/2017 dated 21.06.2017 based on the petitioner representation dated 16.06.2017. For Petitioner : M/s.G.Baskar For Respondents :Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to comply with order of the first respondent, dated 21.06.2017, based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.06.2017.

3. According to the petitioner, the land in survey Nos.5/1 and 5 /2 measuring an extent of 1.29 acres and 80 cents respectively, was owned by his father Veerasamy Reddiyar and the respondent had acquired the land in the year 1964 for the purpose of construction of a Co-operative Spinning Mill.

4. According to the petitioner, the land is now not used for the purpose, for which, it was required. Hence, he submitted a representation to the respondents on 16.06.2017 for re-conveying the said land. Though the first respondent directed the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, by letter dated 21.06.2017, no action was taken. Hence the present writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if a specific direction is issued to the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

6. The learned Government Advocate submitted that reconveying can be considered only by the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department and if a proper representation is given, the same would be considered by him in accordance with law.

7. In the light of the above facts and submissions of the learned Counsels on either side, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai by enclosing a copy of this order within a period of two weeks. On such compliance, the Secretary to Government, Industries Department shall consider the same and dispose of the representation on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties.

8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Villupuram.

2.Sub Collector, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

+1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.39525 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39109 W.P.No.12024 of 2018 VGII(CO) GSP(06/07/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/