Madras High CourtWP/2113/2016disposed of

Padhur Jaman v. The Tahsildar

2016-01-22Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.01.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No. 2113 of 2016 Padhur Jaman ..

Petitioner Vs The Tahsildar, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District .. Respondent Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2015 pertaining to transfer of patta in S.No.94/11 situated within the jurisdiction of the respondent.

For Petitioner : M/s. N. Suriya Muthu For Respondent : Mr.V. Subbiah Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The Petitioners have come forward with this Writ Petition seeking for a mandamus upon the respondent to consider and dispose the petitioner's representation, dated 24.11.2015 pertaining to transfer of patta within the time, that may be stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.N. Suriya Muthu, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property measuring 0.31 cents in S.No.94/11, Thiurporur, Kancheepuram District and he acquired the same from his brother on execution of Marz-ul-maut Sanath as per the Shariat law dated 8.3.2013. Originally the patta for the property stands in the name of one Vasantha from whom his brother bought the said property. Hence the petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 24.11.2015 by enclosing all the relevant documents pertaining to the property requesting to issue patta in his name. But despite the same, the respondent has not evinced https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

any interest in considering the petitioner's representation. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court with this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2015 is considered and necessary orders be passed by the respondent within the time, as fixed by this Court. 5.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has no serious objection in issuing such a direction, as sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

6. In the light of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.11.2015 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar msr To The Tahsildar, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District 1 cc to Mr.N. Suriyamuthu, Advocate, sr. 3817 W.P.No. 2113 of 2016 GJ (CO) kk 9/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/