Disposed

V. Ponnazhagu, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC16 Apr 2013WP(MD)/2670/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition due to the delay by the Revenue Divisional Officer in disposing of an appeal challenging a patta transfer order. The court directed the officer to decide the appeal on merits within four months after issuing notices to other parties.

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within four months after issuing notice to respondents 2 to 4.

V. Ponnazhagu, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.2670 of 2013

¶7

V.Ponnazhagu .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶10

2.R.Marimuthu

¶11

3.A.Chinnaiah

¶12

4.A.C.Bharath .. Respondents

¶13

(R2 to R4 impleaded as per order dated 25.02.2013 in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013)

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent to expedite action and to pass orders on the petitioner's appeal in Na.Ka.A1/9148/2010 within a time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Govardhanan

¶16

For 1st Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader

¶17

For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The delay on the part of the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the order granting patta in favour of the 4th respondent, made her to file this writ petition.

¶20

The petitioner is stated to be in possession and enjoyment of the land in S.Nos.213/2C and 213/2D in Kavinadu East Village, Pudukkottai Taluk. According to the petitioner, patta was transferred in the name of the 4th respondent. The said order was challenged before the first respondent. Even though the appeal was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed as early as on 15.10.2010, no follow up action was taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the matter and pass final orders. This made the petitioner to file the writ petition.

¶21

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent.

¶23

The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of

¶24

the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 15.10.2010 on merits and as per law after issuing notice to the respondents 2 to 4. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶32

+1CC to Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Advocate Sr.21645

¶33

+1CC to Spl.Govt.Pleader Sr.21378

¶34

¶35

NA/07/05/2013/p2/4c

¶36

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.2670 of 2013 16.04.2013

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V. Ponnazhagu, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Ponnazhagu, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chellaswamy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

J.G. Narmatha, Vs the District Collector

S. Arunachalam, S/O.Samy Nadar Vs the District Collector

S. Ganapathy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Devi Corporation,a Partnership Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Ravichandran, Vs the Deputy General Manager &