R.Mahalingam v. Government Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.30957 of 2016
1. R.Mahalingam
2. Nandagopal
3. Sarasu
4. Santhi
5. Sundari
6. M.Vijayakumar
7. Subasriya
8. V.Kaliappan
9. Krishnaveni
10. Kaliammal
11. Murugesan
12. Madhammal
13. Sathya
14. Duraisamy
15. Prabhavathy
16. Perumal
17. Pushpa
18. Anbu
19. Muthukumar
20. Chinnaponnu
21. Saravanan
22. Sarasu
23. Pappal
24. Raja
25. Dhanalakshmi
26. Munusamy ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Dam, Mettur.
4. The Tahsildar, Mettur Dam, Mettur.
5. The Mettur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mettur.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry pursuant to the proceedings in N.K.No.5365-2013C dated 20.02.2014, issued by the 3rd respondent and grant patta to the petitioners in respect of Door Nos.E.50, E.25, E.32, E.34, E.40, E.46, E.53, E.54, E.56, F.41, E.24, E.31, E.33, E.42, E.47, E.52, E.57, E.59, E.51, F.42, F.43, F.44, F.49, E.58, E.60 and E.44 in Ward No.23, Coolie Lane, Mettur, Salem District.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents :
Mr.P.Chinnadurai, Govt. Advocate.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry pursuant to the proceedings in N.K.No.5365-2013C dated 20.02.2014, issued by the 3rd respondent and to grant patta to them.
2. Though the prayer sought for by the petitioners, in the present writ petition, is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioners, dated 12.07.2016, is directed to be disposed of by the fourth respondent, on merits and in accordance with law.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.
4. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, directs the fourth respondent, to consider the representation of the petitioners, dated 12.07.2016, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible.
5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar.
/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.
ogy To
1. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Dam, Mettur.
4. The Tahsildar, Mettur Dam, Mettur.
5. The Commissioner, Mettur Municipality, Mettur.
+1 CC to Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate Sr.No.50595 +1 CC to Govt., Pleader, High Court, Madras Sr.No.50595 W.P.No.30957 of 2016 CA (CO) MD : 22/10/2016