S. Manickavasagam v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.08.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR S.Manickavasagam
...Petitioner
-Vs1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Trirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
4.Dhanasekar Arulanantham
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to issue separate patta in Survey No.64/3A to the extent of 2 Acres 16 Cents situated at Keel Mugam Revenue Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by considering the petitioner's representations dated 08.10.2018 and 29.02.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.Bhagawathy, for RR1 to 3
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to issue separate patta in Survey No.64/3A to the extent of 2 Acres 16 Cents situated at Keel Mugam Revenue Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by considering the petitioner's representations dated 08.10.2018 and 29.02.2019.
1/3
2.Heard Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Bhagawathy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the 4th respondent, notice to him is dispensed with.
3.The petitioner, in order to rectify the alleged mistake occurred in the patta in respect of the land in Survey No.64/3A to the extent of 2 Acres 16 Cents situated at Keel Mugam Revenue Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, has given a representation to the 3rd respondent on 08.10.2018 and also to the other respondents including the 3rd respondent on 29.02.2019. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, if the said representations are decided on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondent and an order to that effect is passed within a time frame, the petitioner would be satisfied.
4.I have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, who would submit that, the said representations made by the petitioner to the official respondents, especially to the 3rd respondent, would be decided on merits, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.
5.Having regard to the said submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition, with the consent of both the parties, at the stage of admission itself, with the following direction:
"The 3rd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.10.2018 and the reminder representation dated 29.02.2019 and after giving opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and other rival claimants, if any, by giving separate notices to them, decide the issue and pass orders thereon, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-I) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 2/3
To 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Trirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
+1 CC to M/s.A.SANKARA RAMA SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-82152[F] dated 19/08/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.Special Govt.Pleader ( SR-82429[F] dated 20/08/2019 Order made in 19.08.2019 Arul SDS (19.12.2019) 3P 6C 3/3