Madras High CourtWP/16806/2022disposed of

C.Manimozhi v. The District Collector

2022-07-04Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.Manimozhi ... Petitioner vs.

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Namakkal District.

2. Assistant Director, Land Survey and Registration Department, District Collectorate, Namakkal District.

3. The Tahsildar, Kollimalai Post, Namakkal District.

4. A.Reegan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2022 and survey the petitioner's land measuring an extent of 2.21 acres in old 1/6

S.No.348/2 and R.S.No.984, 985 and 986 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : M/S.Sarvabhauman Associates For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2022 and survey the petitioner's land measuring an extent of 2.21 acres in old S.No.348/2 and R.S.No.984, 985 and 986 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid property, which was registered through sale deed on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Sendamangalam. Subsequent to the purchase of the aforesaid property, the patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner vide Patta No.226. During re-survey, in the year 2012, the aforesaid land was assigned with R.S.No.984, 985, and 986. The grievance of the petitioner is that, after re-surveying the land, there was discrepancies in the extent of land 2/6

shown in re-survey number with the actual extents of land. In the meantime, the 4th respondent had tried to encroach upon the petitioner's land, and therefore, the petitioner made representation dated 12.04.2022 before the 2nd respondent. As the said representation made by the petitioner has evoked no response from the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Since no adverse order is being passed against the 4th respondent, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.

4. Though very many grounds have been raised in this Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2022 and pass orders on the same within a particular time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has no objection for the said order being passed. 3/6

6. In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

04.07.2022 Index :

Yes/No Speaking order :

Yes/No jd 4/6

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Namakkal District.

2. Assistant Director, Land Survey and Registration Department, District Collectorate, Namakkal District.

3. The Tahsildar, Kollimalai Post, Namakkal District.

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

5/6

jd 04.07.2022 6/6