P.Vaitheeswaran v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 23.11.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN WP.No.41110/2016 P.Vaitheeswaran ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Collector Salem District, Salem.

2.The Sub Collector Mettur, Salem District.

3.P.Sadasivam ..

Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2013 and 13.10.2016 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue a patta in the name of all the legal heirs of Krishnaveniammal by cancel the patta issued to the 3rd respondent.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Sivakumar For RR 1 & 2 :

Mr.P.Chinnadurai, GA

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Chinnadurai, learned Government Advocate who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and with the consent on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner namely Krishaveni Ammal purchased a land to an extent of 63 cents, comprised in S.No.99/2A and also obtained patta in her favour vide Patta No.187. She had also purchased the property in S.No.99/2B vide patta No.1155. Subsequent to her demise, the legal heirs of the deceased Krishaveni Ammal including the petitioner and the 3rd respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

herein, enjoyed the properties in question. While so, the 3rd respondent, misusing his power as the Village Administrative Officer, obtained Patta in his favour and the said patta was issued by the 2nd respondent without enquiring the other legal heirs of the deceased Krishnaveni Ammal. The representation sent by the petitioner on 20.11.2013 was not considered by the 2nd respondent. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent who in turn, had forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 28.12.2013 and also directed the 2nd respondent to submit the enquiry report on or before 15.01.2014. Since the 2nd respondent did not initiate any action on his part, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act and sought information.

As per the order of the Commissioner of RTI, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent during May 2016 with all relevant records ; but till date no action is forth coming from the 2nd respondent and the representation dated 13.10.2016 sent by the petitioner also did not fructify. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the representations of the petitioner dated 27.12.2013 and 13.10.

2016 respectively, directs the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the said representations on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice to the 3rd respondent herein and pass orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent herein.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS V ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem. 2.The Sub Collector, Mettur, Salem District. +1 cc to Mr.S.Sivakumar,advocate,sr.68402 +1 cc to Govt Pleader,sr.68511 ssi(co) krd 26/12 WP.No.41110/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/