Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1965 (MAD)

Chellammal v. District Collector, Salem

2021-08-03

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.1730/2019/A-6 dated 26.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently directing the 4th respondent to issue patta to the petitioner’s house situated in S.No.99/4, Thathampatti village, Salem Taluk and Salem District in Door No.898-9/3-467, Selva Nagar, Ponnar Sankar Koil North, Thathampatti, Kamaraj Nagar Colony Post, Salem Taluk, Salem District.) 1. The writ petitioner had knocked the doors of this Court in an earlier W.P.No.7709 of 2019 in the nature of Mandamus against the 4th respondent, in that particular Writ Petition namely, the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Manakkadu, Hasthampatti, Salem, to issue Patta to the petitioner’s house at S.No.99/4, Thathampatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District in Door No.898-9/3-467, Selva Nagar, Ponnar Sankar Koil North, Thathampatti, Kamaraj Nagar Colony Post, Salem Taluk, Salem District. 2. In the course of hearing of that particular Writ Petition, the respondents had informed that the petitioner’s request to grant patta had been rejected by memorandum Roc.No.1730/2019/A6 dated 26.07.2019 passed by the 4th respondent therein. 3. The copy of the order had also been produced. The learned Single Judge of this Court granted a liberty to the petitioner to workout necessary reliefs before the competent forum in the manner recognized by law. 4. The writ petitioner herein had filed the present Writ Petition questioning that particular rejection of the grant of patta. This Writ Petition had been filed on 17.03.2021. 5. It would only be proper that the petitioner files an appeal questioning that particular order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. 6. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the issue of limitation would be a bar for the petitioner to approach the particular Authority. 7. However, the petitioner can take advantage that the period of limitation had been directed to be condoned by orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the order of this Court, in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic situation from March 2020 onwards. The petitioner will have to explain the delay from around August 2019 till March 2020. 7. However, the petitioner can take advantage that the period of limitation had been directed to be condoned by orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the order of this Court, in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic situation from March 2020 onwards. The petitioner will have to explain the delay from around August 2019 till March 2020. If sufficient reasons are given by filing an application to condone the delay, the Authority may examine the same and take into consideration the plight of the petitioner herein and take on file any appeal filed as against the order of the 4th respondent, the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Manakkadu, Hasthampatti, Salem dated 26.07.2019 and issue notice to the petitioner, hear the petitioner, consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a final order on or before 30.09.2021. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.