G. Pavadai vs The Special Secretary To Government

V. Dhanapalan, J.

By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. R.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representations dated 08.03.2013 and 09.12.2013 to fix the guideline rate in respect of R.S. No. 224/29, Cadastre No. 1089/1, Ward-O, Block No. 4, Town Survey No. 14/31, situated in Murugapakkam Revenue Village, Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry.

It is stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this writ petition that the property in question belonged to his father late Gobal Counder by virtue of sale deed registered before the Notaire and the French Law, which is not analogous on par with the registration under Registration Act, as Notaire was obliged to scrutinise the title of the vendors before the conveyance is made to the vendee. Once the sale deed is issued by the Notaire in favour of the vendee, it has force to decree and executable with police force with the help of "Hussier", who are persons like "Amina". In the meanwhile, his father died intestate, leaving three male issues and he had not written any Will or Document in the matter of his estate. The above three had executed a partition deed on 26.09.2008 vide Doc. No. 5283 of 2008 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Puducherry.

It is also stated that pursuant to the execution of partition deed, a particular portion of the property has come to his possession and he has been enjoying the same in the capacity of absolute owner. Subsequently, he had submitted a representation dated 08.03.2013 along with the enclosures of all the parent documents to the 2nd respondent for the purpose of fixing the GLR value in respect of his land and the same has been pending with the 2nd respondent for the past eight months, which forced the petitioner again to send a reminder dated 09.12.2013. Despite the same, no action has been taken by the 2nd respondent to release the GLR value in respect of his land. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the above direction.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, after exhaustive argument, would make a plea that if the representation followed by the reminder of the petitioner dated 08.03.2013 and 09.12.2013 are disposed of, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed.

Learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) has not opposed to for consideration of the representations of the petitioner on providing reasonable time limit for disposal of the same.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the 2nd respondent herein is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 08.03.2013 and 09.12.2013 on merits and in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.