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.

Chellaiah Vs. The Assistant Director, Land Records, Tanjore District and Another

Chellaiah vs The Assistant Director, Land Records, Tanjore District and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 17, 2016
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1188933

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. 9729 of 2016
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chellaiah

Respondent

The Assistant Director, Land Records, Tanjore District and Another

Excerpt

.....sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. according to the petitioner, his grand-father namely, paraman got settlement from his excellency raja saraboji, tanjore and in fact, the settlement was registered in the office of the registration department in the year 1828. in fact, those documents were registered on 5th, 13th and 25th november 1828. 5. the clear-cut case of the petitioner is that now the property was encroached by some people without having proper records in their possession. therefore, the petitioner had decided to evict them in a lawful manner. in fact, one selvaraj, petitioner's relative sought information under the right to information act before the respondents/authorities and they have rejected the claim under section 6(3)(ii) of the right to information act. against which, an appeal was filed before the state information commission and the same was rejected. 6. the plea of the petitioner is that he has to institute legal proceedings against the encroachers and they are having only the parent document. further, because of their illiteracy and being poor, the authorities have made the petitioner to run from pillar to post. as such, he sent a representation to the respondents on 12.4.2016. since there is no action on the side of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this court. 7. considering the fact that the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 12.4.2016 addressed to the respondents mentioned therein and the same is pending without any progress or disposal, this court in the interest of justice, equity, fair play, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the respondents to look into the representation of the petitioner, dated 12.4.2016 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned speaking order, on merits(of course.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to furnish the documents in respect of the property which have been mentioned in Annexure with this Writ Petition based on the Petitioner's representation, dated 12.4.2016.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents.

4. According to the Petitioner, his grand-father namely, Paraman got settlement from His Excellency Raja Saraboji, Tanjore and in fact, the settlement was registered in the Office of the Registration Department in the year 1828. In fact, those documents were registered on 5th, 13th and 25th November 1828.

5. The clear-cut case of the Petitioner is that now the property was encroached by some people without having proper records in their possession. Therefore, the Petitioner had decided to evict them in a lawful manner. In fact, one Selvaraj, Petitioner's relative sought information under the Right to Information Act before the Respondents/Authorities and they have rejected the claim under Section 6(3)(ii) of the Right to Information Act. Against which, an appeal was filed before the State Information Commission and the same was rejected.

6. The plea of the Petitioner is that he has to institute legal proceedings against the encroachers and they are having only the parent document. Further, because of their illiteracy and being poor, the authorities have made the Petitioner to run from pillar to post. As such, he sent a representation to the Respondents on 12.4.2016. Since there is no action on the side of the Respondents, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.

7. Considering the fact that the Petitioner has sent a representation, dated 12.4.2016 addressed to the Respondents mentioned therein and the same is pending without any progress or disposal, this Court in the interest of justice, Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Respondents to look into the representation of the Petitioner, dated 12.4.2016 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned speaking order, on merits(of course after providing necessary opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice in true letter and spirit) within a period of three weeks thereafter. It is open to the Petitioner to produce copies of all necessary/relevant documents before the Respondents and the Respondents in-turn shall take into consideration of the same at the time of disposal of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 12.4.2016. The Petitioner is directed to lend his assistance and co-operation to the Respondents, in disposing of his representation, dated 12.4.2016 within the time fixed by this Court, as stated supra.

8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial