M.SATHYANARAYANAN
Pee & Dee Lands Holdings Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
District Revenue Officer, Chennai – Respondent
1. The petitioner/Private Limited Company challenges the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 07.01.2013, in and by which, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in C.A. No. 58/2012, dated 13.01.2012, has been cancelled and further direction was issued to restore the same to it's original entry and the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk - the second respondent herein, was directed to carry out the changes in terms of the said order.
2. The petitioner - the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver that it is a well known Company and has been in the business of realtors-promotion and development for several decades and it has earned a name and reputation for itself in selling and promoting projects which have impeccable title and workmanship. The petitioner Company, during the course of business, had purchased the properties situated at 71/1, L.B. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, after getting legal opinion and on scrutinising the title deeds.
3. The petitioner would further aver that the said property stood in the name of one Dr. Kuppusamy Naicker, who had purchased it in a Court Auction Sa
C. Sabesan Chettiar v. The District Revenue Officer
Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and others
Kuppusami Nainar v. The District Revenue Officer reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426
Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another
Selvaraju v. The District Revenue Officer
Sabesan Chettiar v. The District Revenue Officer reported in 2011 (5) CTC 241
T.R. Dinakaran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported in 2012 (3) CTC 823
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.