Madras High Court
M.Balakrishnan vs The Commissioner (Land Survey) on 11 October, 2017
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.(MD)No.7161 of 2017
M.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner (Land Survey),
O/o. The Central Land Survey Department,
Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005.
2.The Assistant Director (Land Survey),
O/o. The Central Land Survey Department,
Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005. ... Respondents
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2016 relating to furnish the FMB
sketches to the petitioner's ancestral property situated in SF.No.1/16,
Kayangulam Group 84, Kuttithinni Village, Thambanusilangulam Sub Division and
pass appropriate orders within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohamed Kadhar
^For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan,
Special Government Pleader
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to furnish the FMB sketches to his ancestral property situated in SF.No.1/16, Kayangulam Group 84, Kuttithinni Village, Thambanusilangulam Sub Division, by considering his representation dated 21.11.2016.
2. According to the petitioner, the subject property belongs to them and on 19.08.2013, under RTI Act, 2005, he sought for FMB sketch, in respect of the subject property and after payment of necessary fee, the respondents had furnished the same. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents had not furnished the entire FMB sketch and hence, he submitted another representation dated 21.11.2016, requesting the respondents to furnish the entire FMB sketches and he has also expressed his willingness to pay necessary fee for the same. But all his efforts did not yield any results and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of by the respondents, within a stipulated time limit, in the manner known to law, which is also agreed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. Under such circumstances, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders, on its own merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The Commissioner (Land Survey), O/o. The Central Land Survey Department, Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005.
2.The Assistant Director (Land Survey), O/o. The Central Land Survey Department, Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005.
.