← Library
Madras High CourtWP/26543/2022dismissed

A.M.Ponnusamy v. The Principal Secretary

2022-10-10Honourable The Acting Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Writ Petition No.26543 of 2022 A.M.Ponnusamy ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The District Collector Chengalpet.

4. The District Revenue Officer Chengalpet District Chengalpet.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer

6. The Tahsildar ..

Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2022 and 11.08.2022 regarding issuance of free house site patta to the families residing in the Eachenkaranai Village, kunnavakkam Village Panchayat, Chengalpet Taluk, Chengalpet District.

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Naresh Kumar For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) The petitioner, claiming to be the Ex-President of HR and CE District Level Committee and Ex-Union Chairman of Kattankulathur Union, Kunnavakkam Village, has filed this public interest litigation for a direction to the respondents to consider his representations dated 07.03.2022 and 11.08.2022 with regard to the issuance of free house site patta to the families residing in Eachenkarani Village.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the people in Eachenkaranai Village, Kunnavakkam Village Panchayat, are residing with their families in the house sites for which free house site pattas have not been issued.

3. At this juncture, when we questioned learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is residing in the place in question, the answer was in the negative. Again, when we asked learned counsel for the petitioner to produce any document to show that the people, for whom the petitioner has come up with this writ petition, are residing in the place in question for long number of years, the petitioner could not produce the same.

4. In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.K.K., J.) 10.10.2022 Index: Yes/No kpl

To

1. The Principal Secretary Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The District Collector Chengalpet.

4. The District Revenue Officer Chengalpet District Chengalpet.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer

6. The Tahsildar

T.RAJA, ACJ, and D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J (kpl) 10.10.2022