Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3809 (MAD)

Kulanthai Esu v. District Collector

2014-10-14

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is one of the joint owners of his Family property and that a partition suit was filed, wherein he figured as second plaintiff in O.S.No.525 of 1995 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli. A Preliminary Decree was passed in the said suit on 27.03.2000. One of the Defendants in the said suit, as an aggrieved person, filed A.S.No.100 of 2000 on the file of learned First Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli and the said 'Appeal' came to be dismissed and the Judgment of the trial Court passed in the suit was affirmed. 3. It comes to be known that the petitioner filed I.A.No.1023 of 2006 praying for passing of Final Decree on the file of the Trial Court and the same was taken on file and resultantly a Commissioner was appointed and properties were partitioned and a final order was passed on 20.12.2010. In effect the stand of the petitioner is that, in terms of the Final Decree passed on 20.12.2010, he is the owner of the absolute property for the share mentioned in the Partition Decree. He made representation to the authorities concerned seeking issuance of patta based on his legal right on various dates and also made a representation to the third Respondent through RPAD on 18.07.2012. The Third Respondent had not taken any action so far. Subsequently, the petitioner made another representation addressed to the Respondents 1 and 2 on 20.07.2012 and the same was received and acknowledged by them. However, no order has been passed based on his representation dated 20.07.2012. 4. The Third Respondent had not taken any action so far. Subsequently, the petitioner made another representation addressed to the Respondents 1 and 2 on 20.07.2012 and the same was received and acknowledged by them. However, no order has been passed based on his representation dated 20.07.2012. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has sought a limited relief of passing of an order by this Court in directing the third Respondent to issue patta to his lands based on his representation dated 18.07.2012, this Court as an equitable relief in the interest of Justice and Fairplay and also as a matter of prudence, directs the third Respondent/Tahsildar to look into the representation of the petitioner dated 18.07.2012 and also the subsequent representation dated 20.07.2012 addressed to the Respondents 1 and 2 in a fair, just, objective and dispassionate manner and dispose of the said representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, (of course, after providing adequate/necessary opportunities to the petitioner and others concerned, if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice). It is made clear that the third Respondent shall pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 18.07.2012 and the subsequent representation dated 20.07.2012 addressed to the Respondents 1 and 2 in a dispassionate manner uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this writ petition. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.