Madras High CourtWP(MD)/6937/2017disposed of

S.K.Ganesh Babu Iyer, v. The Commissioner

2017-09-21Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.09.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.6937 of 2017 S.K.Ganesh Babu Iyer ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Noongambakkam, Chennai - 34.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Administrative Department, Madurai District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Administrative Department, Dindigul District.

4. The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Dindigul District.

5. The Sub-Registrar, Joint Sub Registrar - 2, Taluk Office, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner's family properties comprised in Survey Nos.665 to 705 and Survey Nos.708/1, 708/2, 708/3, 707, 717/3 and 714/1 which situate at Ward No.1, Balsamy Chettiyar Sathiram, Balathirupathy, Thadicombu Road, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District on the basis of the representation sent by the petitioner, dated 01.04.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Benazir Begum For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner's family properties comprised in Survey Nos.665 to 705 and Survey Nos.708/1, 708/2, 708/3, 707, 717/3 and 714/1 which situate at Ward No.1, Balsamy Chettiyar Sathiram, Balathirupathy, Thadicombu Road, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District on the basis of the representation sent by the petitioner, dated 01.04.2017.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner made the representation dated 01.04.2017 to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking to issue No Objection Certificate related to the title as well as to conduct Mandagappadi and poojas, the same has not been considered so far and hence, he is before this Court.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2017, is disposed of by the respondents 1 to 3 as per law. 5.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2017 and pass appropriate orders on its own merit and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To