Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Land Reforms Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Land Reforms Act
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    M.VANITHA, W/O. R.V.MURUGAN v. THE DIRECTOR

    WP(MD)No.13381 of 2016

    BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

    DATED : 02.03.2023

    CORAM:

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

    WP(MD)No.13381 of 2016

    M.Vanitha ... Petitioner v.

    1.The Director,

    Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Board, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

    2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

    3.The Municipal Commissioner, Ottanchatram Municipality, Ottanchatram, Dindigul District.

    4.The Bhoodan Inspector,

    Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Board,

    Dindigul District,

    Dindigul. ... Respondents

    1/4

    Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.11.2015, within a stipulated time limit.

    For Petitioner : Mr.M.O.Thevan Kumar

    For Respondents : Mr.T.Vilavan Kothai

    Additional Government Pleader

    *****

    ORDER

    The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on her representation dated 19.11.2015, in accordance with law.

    2.The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the land in S.No. 156 of Ottanchatram Village and the same was taken over under the Land Reforms Act and has been sanctioned to one Tiruman, S/o.Suppanmathari, for the purpose of cultivation. The allottee died 30 years back and the legal heirs have not utilized the land. Since the land is kept vacant, without any usage, the petitioner has made a representation for reconveyance.

    2/4

    3.Learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the allotment made in favour of one Tiruman with regard to the land in S.No.156 was cancelled by the Member Secretary, Bhoodan Board, by proceedings in K1/515/2012, dated 21.11.2022. He further submitted that the land has been allotted to Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, which, in turn, has allotted the same to various poor people. He further submitted that now buildings have also been constructed in the said land. 4.Recording the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Index : Yes / No 02.03.2023

    Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No gk

    To

    1.The Director, Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Board, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

    3/4

    B.PUGALENDHI, J.

    gk 2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

    3.The Municipal Commissioner, Ottanchatram Municipality, Ottanchatram, Dindigul District.

    4.The Bhoodan Inspector,

    Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Board,

    Dindigul District,

    Dindigul.

    WP(MD)No.13381 of 2016

    02.03.2023

    4/4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    M.VANITHA, W/O. R.V.MURUGAN v. THE DIRECTOR
    (Mar 2, 2023)