Loading...
Responsive image

Rasu vs The District Collector on 22 July, 2009

Madras High Court
Rasu vs The District Collector on 22 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 22/07/2009

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

Writ Petition No.6618 of 2009

Rasu				... 	Petitioner

Vs

1.The District Collector,
  Tiruchirappalli,
  Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The Tahsildar,
  Taluk Office,
  Manapparai,
  Tiruchirappalli District.	...	Respondents

	Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of  writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to implement
the first respondent's instruction in O.Mu.AA.2/27499/2007 dated 20.07.2009
within a stipulated period.

!For petitioner   ...Mr.A.S.Gopalamanikandan
^For respondents  ...Mr.Pala. Ramasamy
		     Special Government Pleader
		
:ORDER

The petitioner approached the first respondent for assigning of two acres
of land in S.No.170/2 in Naduvapatti, Kannukuzhi Panchayat, Manapparai Taluk
out of an extent of 4 Acres 87 cents. The first respondent by his proceedings
in O.Mu.AA2/27499/2007 dated 20.07.2007 forwarded the representation of the
petitioner to the second respondent to take action on the representation and
inform the Collectorate about the action taken by the second respondent. As the
petitioner was not informed about the action taken by the second respondent, he
has filed this Writ Petition directing the second respondent to implement the
order of the first respondent dated 20.07.2007.

2.Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for
the respondents and submitted that the memo of the Collector dated 20.07.2007
makes it clear that the file is retained only for one year and that is evident
from the Reference O.Mu., which means one year and according to him, the order
might have been passed and as per the UDR Patta, S.No.170/2 of an extent of
3.04.0 Hectares has been classified as “Vandipathai” and therefore, the
petitioner’s request for assignment could not have been considered in his
favour.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction of the Collector,
dated 20.07.2007 was not implemented by the Tahsildar. The petitioner does not
know whether the direction has been implemented by the Tahsildar or not and in
that case, the petitioner could have approached the first respondent about the
action taken by the Tahsildar on the memo issued by the first respondent or he
would have approached the Tahsildar and asked for details. The petitioner could
have also invoked the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 and got
information from the Authorities and without following all these procedures the
petitioner straight away has come to this Court for the issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the second respondent to implement the order of
the first respondent. Such a practice cannot be encouraged and if at all the
petitioner has got any grievance, he has to approach the District Collector,
namely the first respondent who has passed the memo dated 20.07.2007 and ask for
details. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.

RR

To

1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Manapparai,
Tiruchirappalli District.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information