Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vellaichamy Vs. The District Collector, Trichy and Others

Vellaichamy vs The District Collector, Trichy and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Dec 08, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1186513

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P(MD) No. 2214 of 2015
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vellaichamy

Respondent

The District Collector, Trichy and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to properties in s.no.266/3 to an extent of 1.48 cents, s.no.267/8 to an extent of 86 cents, s.no.267/7 to an extent of 77 cents, s.no.269/3 to an extent of 88 cents and s.no.269/5 an extent of 51 cents totally an extent of acre 4 and 78 cents situated at vellakulathu patti, ayyan reddiapatti village, manapparai taluk, trichy district.) 1. the petitioner sought for change of patta in his name in respect of the land under dispute and the said request was rejected earlier on 09.02.2011 by the tashildar, manapparai, the third respondent herein. challenging the said rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court in w.p(md)no.8061 of 2011, wherein, an order came to be passed on 12.06.2012 quashing the said order of rejection and remitting the matter back to the tashildar to pass fresh orders, within a period of eight weeks. 2. now, it is contended that even though the tashildar has conducted an enquiry, final order has not been passed so far. 3. the learned special government pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that a time frame may be fixed for the tashildar to pass the final order. 4. accordingly, without expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, i only direct the third respondent to pass final order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to properties in S.No.266/3 to an extent of 1.48 cents, S.No.267/8 to an extent of 86 cents, S.No.267/7 to an extent of 77 cents, S.No.269/3 to an extent of 88 cents and S.No.269/5 an extent of 51 cents totally an extent of acre 4 and 78 cents situated at Vellakulathu patti, Ayyan Reddiapatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.)

1. The petitioner sought for change of patta in his name in respect of the land under dispute and the said request was rejected earlier on 09.02.2011 by the Tashildar, Manapparai, the third respondent herein. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.8061 of 2011, wherein, an order came to be passed on 12.06.2012 quashing the said order of rejection and remitting the matter back to the Tashildar to pass fresh orders, within a period of eight weeks.

2. Now, it is contended that even though the Tashildar has conducted an enquiry, final order has not been passed so far.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that a time frame may be fixed for the Tashildar to pass the final order.

4. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, I only direct the third respondent to pass final order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial