GANAPATHY v. STATE
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
Judgment date:
Case summary
Madras High Court judgment dated 2020-08-03. GANAPATHY v. STATE. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03. 08. 2020 CORAM : The HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY W. P. No. 18015 of 2013 and M. P. No. 1 of 2013 Ganapathy ... Petitioner v. 1. State Rep. By, District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 2. Tahsildar, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District. 3. Indhumathy 4. J. Subosenan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution st of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 and the nd 2 respondents to grant patta under free patta scheme to the petitioner in respect of his small house shed and vacant land st situated at No. 48, New No. 60/6, Stewardpet, 1 Lane, Tiruttani, after expediting the patta issuing process in terms of the petitioner's representation dated 12. 06. 2013. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Ms. A. Mathumathi, Special Govt.
Pleader - for R1 & R2 No Appearance – for R3 & R4 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant patta under free patta scheme to the petitioner in respect of petitioner's small house shed and vacant land situated at No. 48, st New No. 60/6, Stewardpet, 1 Lane, Tiruttani, after expediting the patta issuing process in terms of the petitioner's representation dated 12. 06. 2013. Page 1/2 https://hcservices. ecourts. gov. in/hcservices/ 2. It is the case of the petitioner though he has given his representation as early as on 12. 06. 2013, the respondents have not considered the same. 3. Ms. A. Mathumathi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the request made by the petitioner cannot be granted for the reason that the petitioner is seeking for free house site patta.
However, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that nd the 2 respondent would consider the petitioner's request and pass orders in accordance with law, within a time frame. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any nd opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2 respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12. 06. 2013 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar Rj To 1. The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 2. Tahsildar, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
+1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court Madras sr26120 W. P. No. 18015 of 2013 and M. P. No. 1 of 2013 aa12/08/2020 Page 2/2 https://hcservices. ecourts. gov. in/hcservices/
Source: Madras High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.