1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1161 of 2011 V.Jayarani ..Petitioner in person Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Tahsildar, Madurai Division, Madurai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 13.01.2011 and consequently direct the first respondent to issue a house site patta in survey No.17/1 extent of 1755 feet situated at Narayanapuram Village, Naganakulam Panchayat, Indian Bank Colony, Madurai-14, in accordance with law. For Petitioner :M/s.V.Jeyarani For Respondents :Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Govt. Advocate ORDER The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider her representation, dated 13.01.2011 for the purpose of issuing house site patta in respect of the property in Survey No.17/1 situated at Narayanapuram Village, Naganakulam Panchayat, Indian Bank Colony, Madurai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. According to the petitioner she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.17/1 situated at Narayanapuram Village in the District of Madurai, for the last more than thirty years. The land was classified as Government promboke land. The petitioner has constructed a residential house and she has been living there along with her family members. The adjoining lands are in possession of third parties. The Government have already issued patta to the adjoining people. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation was not considered in accordance with the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.854 Revenue(LD1) (2) Department and G.O.M.S.No.498 Revenue (LD1) (2) Department, dated 05.09.2007. Earlier the petitioner has submitted a representation on 30.09.2000 before the first respondent. Since there was no follow up action, the petitioner has submitted another representation on 13.01.2011. However, there was no positive response from the first respondent. This made the petitioner to file the present Writ petition. 3. When the Writ petition came up for admission on 01.02.2011, I have directed the learned Government Advocate to take instructions about the time required for the disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions from the first respondent submits that the first respondent is now considering the issue and he requires eight weeks time to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 5. Since the District Collector, Madurai District is now seized of the matter and requires only eight weeks time to dispose of the representation, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served in case a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 13.01.2011, on merits and as per law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain her case. Such exercise https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 shall be completed, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Considering the continuous possession of the petitioner as evident from the B-Memo, dated 30.05.1989, the respondents are directed not to disturb her possession, till the disposal of representation by the first respondent. 7. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Tahsildar, Madurai Division, Madurai. +1cc to M/s.V.Jeyarani, Advocate Sr.No.4579 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader Sr.No.4868 pm akm/09.02.11 /3p-5c/ W.P.(MD)No.1161 of 2011 07.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/