R.V.M. Sumanth Rao vs The District Collector

M. Jaichandren, J.—At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the Respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 1.12.2010,on merits and in accordance with law, with in a specified period.

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

It is seen that the representation of the petitioner, dated 1.12.2010, has been made, requesting the respondent to cancel the pattas issued in the name of certain persons, in respect of the land in survey No. 3847/6, sub divided as survey No. 3847/121, in Mylapore village, Chennai District, and to grant patta in the name of the Petitioner. However, it is found that the names ofthe persons, in whose favour the pattas had been granted, had not been added as Respondents in the writ petition.

It has also been noted that certain civil suits are pending in respect of the property in question.

In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Respondent to consider there presentation of the Petitioner, dated 1.12.2010, and to pass appropriate orders there on, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as to the other persons concerned. The Respondent shall conduct the enquiry and pass orders, as he deems fit and appropriate inthe given circumstances of the case, with in a period offour months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the Respondent finds, on enquiry,that the request of the Petitioner is relating to a civil 3 dispute, the Petitioner may be directed to approach the concerned civil forum to obtain the reliefs, in the manner known to law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.