Madras High Court
K.R.Samy @ K.Ramasamy vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 23 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.400 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.400 of 2021
K.R.Samy @ K.Ramasamy ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pudukottai.
4.The Tahsildar,
Alangudi Taluk,
Alangudi,
Pudukottai.
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Lakshmi Narasimmapuram,
Alangudi Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Vadakadu Police Station,
Pudukottai District – 622 304.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/5
W.A.(MD)No.400 of 2021
7.Pushparani
8.Chinnadurai ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, against the
dated 27.11.2020, passed in W.P.(MD)No.16907 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.R.M.Makesh Kumaravel
For R1 to R6 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi
Special Government Pleader
*****
JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, who after taking note of the judgment rendered in a Suit between the
appellant and the private respondents, declined to grant the relief sought for on
the premise that the official respondents were not impleaded as party
respondents.
2.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant what has been sought for is consideration of issuance of Patta, which
lies only within the discretion of the official respondents viz., respondent Nos.2
to 4, though a Writ of Mandamus to grant Patta would not lie, the appellant is
entitled to seek direction to the respondents to consider his request.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.400 of 2021
3.In such view of the matter, we call upon respondent Nos.2 to 4 to
consider the request of the appellant for grant of Patta. We may also note that
the learned Single Judge is right to the extent of saying that the decree will not
bind respondent Nos.2 to 4, who were not made as parties to the suit.
Appropriate orders will have to be passed by respondent No.4 within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While doing
so, respondent No.4 shall issue notice to the private respondents as well. It is
further clarified that we have not given any positive direction, as it is only
meant for mere consideration.
4.This Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Index :Yes/No [M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
Internet :Yes 23.02.2021
smn2
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.400 of 2021
2.The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pudukottai.
4.The Tahsildar,
Alangudi Taluk,
Alangudi,
Pudukottai.
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Lakshmi Narasimmapuram,
Alangudi Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Vadakadu Police Station,
Pudukottai District – 622 304.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.400 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
smn2
W.A.(MD)No.400 of 2021
23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
