N.S.Gomathi v. The Commissioner,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 09.10.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.A No.2247 of 2013 N.S.Gomati ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai -5.

2.The Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

3.The Tahsildar, Tambaram.

... Respondents/Respondents Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.24753 of 2013 dated 06.09.2013.

W.P.No.24753 of 2013 : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to resotre the portion of the petitioners land coming under S.No.69/1 (Part) measuring an extent of 2040 sq.ft. in Pammal Village, Pallavaram, Kancheepuram District in view of the repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act by making necessary amendments in the Revenue Records in due compliance with the Application of the petitioner submitted in Ref. No.1194 dated 12.7.2009 and further direct the 2nd respondent to issue patta in respect of the said property through the 3rd respondent. For Appellant : Mr.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.A.Zakir Hussain Government Advocate

J U D G M E N T

K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

When it was made known to the learned counsel for the appellant as to how the appellant is entitled for a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Ezhilagam, Chennai, to restore her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

property in S.No.69/1 (Part) in Pammal Village, Pallavaram, Kancheepuram District, the learned counsel submitted that he is withdrawing the very writ petition with liberty to approach the concerned civil court. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we permit the appellant to withdraw the writ petition in W.P.No.24753 of 2013 with liberty to approach the proper forum for appropriate relief. However, we make it clear that the expression "liberty" should not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. In short, it is for the concerned authority to decide the matter purely on merits and as per law.

3. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.24753 of 2013 as not pressed, nothing survives for adjudication in this intra court appeal.

4. The intra court appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar svki To 1.The Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai -5.

2.The Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

3.The Tahsildar, Tambaram.

+1cc to Mr.M.Arumugam, Advocate, S.R.No.72034 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.72688 W.A No.2247 of 2013 SR(CO) CA(20/11/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/