Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

Amsaya vs The Collector

Madras High Court|18 August, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The Writ petitioner is stated to be the sister of Veeraserasozhapandiyan. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the said brother has sold Ac.9.05 cents of land to one Selvaraj and Shanmugasundaram on 04.07.2001. It is stated that one Palani has purchased Ac.4.55 cents from the above said Selvaraj in spite of the suit filed by the petitioner pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Panruti in O.S.No.59/2006 in which there has been an order of injunction granted against the brother of the petitioner as well as Shanmugasundaram, Selvaraj and Palani, not to alienate the property. The petitioner has claimed right in respect of another extent of 1 acre situated at Vegakollai Village comprised in Survey No.703 Old Survey No.988. It is stated to be other than Ac.9.05 cents stated to have been sold by her brother on 04.07.2001. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the said Palani who has illegally purchased the Ac.4.55 cents as stated above is attempting to get Patta in respect of one Acre of the property, which is stated to be within possession of the petitioner. It is seen that on behalf of the Petitioner, a legal notice was issued on 04.07.2008 to the Thasildhar not to entertain any application for transfer of Patta by the said Palani. Even though this Writ Petition is filed for a direction against the 2nd respondent, the Tahsildhar not to issue patta in favour of any person in respect of land measuring Ac.9.05 cents in Survey No.988 situated in Vegakollai Panchayat, which is the subject matter of the dispute in O.S.No.59 of 2006, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction is given to the Tahsildhar, the 2nd respondent herein to consider the legal notice dated 04.07.2008, issued on behalf of the petitioner and pass orders on merit, the petitioner will be satisfied and the petitioner would take all further course of action in the suit, which is pending.
2. Even though, I am of the view that the Mandamus as prayed for could not be issued, since, the representation is given in the form of legal notice dated 04.07.2008, the Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the said legal notice dated 04.07.2008 as a representation and pass appropriate orders on merit and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the said Palani apart from Veeraserasozhapandiyan, Shanmugasundaram and Selvaraj. It is made clear that the petitioner shall enclose a copy of the said legal notice dated 04.07.2008 in the form of representation along with a copy of this order to the 2nd respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter it is for the 2nd respondent to pass orders, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No costs.
sal/ars To
1.The Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore
2.The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar Panruti Cuddalore District
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Amsaya vs The Collector

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
18 August, 2009