1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD)No.101 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2011 Annamalai Chettiar ... Appellant/3rd Party Vs. 1.Angeline babitha Kumari ...1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. ...Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 1 & 2 Prayer: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 16.11.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.13671 of 2010. Prayer in WP(MD)No.13671 of 2010:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.09.2010, and provide patta for the house in an extent of 2 cents in New Town Survey No.3 ward C.Block - 11 Kodaikanal Village, Dindigul District and within period of stipulated by this Court. For Appellant : Mr.K.Mahendran For Respondents : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R1 Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. for R2 and R3 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order in W.P.(MD)No.13671 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010, wherein the learned Single Judge has given a direction to the 3rd respondent in this Writ Appeal to consider the representation of the 1st respondent dated 06.09.2010 and provide the patta for the house to an extent of 2 cents in new Town Survey No.3, Ward-C, Block-11 in Kodaikanal Village, Dindigul District. 2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st respondent has already claimed the said patta and the same was rejected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 by the 3rd respondent by order dated 16.11.2010 and therefore, the direction sought for to dispose of the representation dated 06.09.2010 ought not have been ordered to be considered. The learned counsel also submitted that in respect of the said area, a civil suit between the 1st respondent and the Municipality is also pending in the Sub Court, Palani. 3.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand submitted that the order dated 16.11.2010 was already been challenged by the 1st respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1149 of 2011 and the same is pending. 4.In view of the pendency of the said Writ petition, wherein the 1st respondent has already challenged the order dated 16.11.2010, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the Writ Appeal is allowed, granting liberty to the parties to agitate their claims in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1149 of 2011. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (L.A) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.8838 + 1 cc to M/s.K.Mahendran, Advocate, SR No.8653 W.A.(MD)No.101 of 2011 14.02.2011 nbj RJ/9.3.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/