SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
J. Ananda Jothi, Ex. President – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Administration, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23442 of 2017 & W.M.P. No. 24624 of 2017
Decided On : 03-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Respondent: E. Manoharan, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering and addressing legitimate claims under the relevant legal provisions in a timely manner to alleviate hardships faced by the residents.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Representation under Section 172(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 - The court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within two weeks.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to consider his representation dated 28.2.2017 in the light of Section 172(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. The petitioner highlighted the plight of the residents of NLC Rehabilitation Centre Jurisdictional Indira Nagar Panchayat, who were facing hardships due to denial of legitimate claims by the authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The court, without going into the merits of the contentions raised, directed the District Collector to dispose of the representation in accordance with the law within two weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.

Issues: The main issue was the denial of legitimate claims by the authorities, leading to hardships for the residents of NLC Rehabilitation Centre Jurisdictional Indira Nagar Panchayat.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to address the hardships faced by the residents and to ensure that the representation under Section 172(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 was considered and disposed of in a timely manner.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 28.2.2017 in the light of Section 172 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.)

In the forenoon, the matter was called and we recorded as hereunder:

No representation. Passed over. Call the matter at 2.15 p.m. today.

2. In the afternoon, the matter is taken up at 2.40 p.m.

3. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider his representation dated 28.2.2017 in the light of Section 172(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.

4. Supporting the prayer sought for, the petitioner has stated that he preferred petition to the respondents bringing out the plight of the residents of NLC Rehabilitation Centre Jurisdictional Indira Nagar Panchayat. When the Neyveli Lignite Corporation was formed in Neyveli, the land owned by the people, has been acquired by the said Corporation. Alternatively, the Corporation along with Tamil Nadu Government have alloted lands to the people who have been dispossessed from their property.

5. Petitioner has further stated that, at the time of allotment of properties to the people, the Corporation, gave a piece of paper as token to the allottee. The main allottee after obtaining the piece of paper, has started living in their allotted land. In the year 1980, lands have been sold out to the present occupants for a valid consideration and not registered in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908.

6. Petitioner has further stated that after purchasing the property, the land owners were not able to get the patta for their properties. When they approached the revenue authorities to obtain patta for their lands, it was rejected by the revenue authorities, stating that they are not holding any valid registered sale documents.

7. Petitioner has further stated that, when the facts stood thus, inhabitants of the locality, have put up construction to live in that place. For the purpose of construction of building, the people were not able to avail the loan for want of address proof. They are not able to get educational loans for their children. All the benefits of the government have been denied to the people. It is pertinent to mention that the inhabitants of that area are facing hardships and their legitimate claim has been denied by the authorities. When, the petitioner was a President of Indira Nagar Panchayat, he refused to accept the property tax, which was paid by the people, due to the oral instructions of the revenue officials not to collect property tax.

8. Petitioner has further stated that, aggrieved over the refusal of property tax, one Mr.P.Kandavadivel has chosen to file W.P.No.26627 of 2015 on the file of this Court. This Court, was pleased to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.08.2015 and directed to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within the period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

9. Petitioner has further stated that, he was not able to collect property tax from the public, due to the aforesaid reasons. The real problem is that property tax can be collected only in the names of the main allottee, but the ground reality is entirely different. He further stated that nearly 70% of the land in that area are 30% who are all main allottees of the property. He further submitted that the people in that area have purchased the property 20 years ago. They have already put up construction and settled. Even after getting the direction from the High Court, the Revenue authorities have not collected the property tax. Their livelihood is affected due to prevention of payment of property tax. For the above said reasons, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the relief stated supra.

10. Eve



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top