G.Sivakumar, S/O.Ganeshan, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 14.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.19955/2016 G.Sivakumar ..Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Special Tahsildar Town Settlement Scheme Tiruvannamalai.

..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 10.09.2015 within time limit framed by this Court to measure, sub-divided and issue the patta in the name of the petitioner land extent of 13800 sq.ft. in S.No.188 situated in Kamatchi Amman Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Narayanan For Respondents: Mr.K.Thangapandi, GA

ORDER

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner would state that he is working as a Police constable in the Central Bureau of Crime Investigation Department [CBCID], Tiruvannamalai Circle and according to him, he owns an ancestral property in Tiruvannamalai Town, admeasuring to an extent of 13800 sq.ft. in Survey No.188, Kamatchi Amman Kovil Street, Tiruvannamalai and claims to be in continuous possession and enjoyment, without any hindrance, whatsoever. It is further stated by the petitioner that despite the fact that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property, no patta has been issued and in this regard, the petitioner given a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 dated 10.09.2015 for issuance of patta and also for subdivision of his property. The 1st respondent, in his communication dated 19.03.2014 in O.Mu. [M4]/11389/2014, has directed the 2nd respondent to look into the same and send an intimation within a period of one week to the petitioner with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

a copy marked to the Office of the District Collector. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that thereafter, he sent a reminder on 10.09.2015 and in spite of the receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent did not chose to pass any orders, overlooking the direction of his superior officer, viz., the 1st respondent herein and prays for appropriate orders. Per contra, Mr.K.Thangapandi, learned Government Advocate who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents would submit, on instructions, that appropriate direction may be given to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time frame. This Court considered the rival submissions.

Though the petitioner prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the same, directs the 2nd respondent to act on the directive of the 1st respondent dated 19.03.2014 and pass orders on the representation dated 10.09.2015 submitted by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, after putting on notice, the persons concerned and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the persons concerned.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Special Tahsildar Town Settlement Scheme Tiruvannamalai.

W.P.No.19955/2016 +1cc to Mr.K. Narayanan, Advocate, S.R.No.32347 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.32466 EV(CO) EU(24/06/2016) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/