Disposed

S.K.Sivarajan v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2015WP/23575/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the third respondent to record the petitioner as a cultivating tenant in pursuance of a previous order, subject to the outcome of a pending appealed against order. The Court clarified that if the appeal is allowed, the entry shall be deleted.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to carry out the necessary entry by recording the petitioner as the cultivating tenant subject to the final order on the pending appeal.

S.K.Sivarajan Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 01.12.2015

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

Writ Petition No.23575 of 2015

¶6

S.K.Sivarajan .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udumalaipettai, Tiruppur District. 3.The Tahsildar, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District. 4.Subramniam 5.Chellammal 6.Devaathaai (R4 to R6 are impleaded as per Order dated 11.08.2015 by MMSJ in MP.1/2015 in W.P.No.23575/2015) .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: PETITION is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the orders of the third respondent dated 24.07.2012 in T.R.No.19 of 1998 and record the tenancy of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Records of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 for the lands measuring about 1.35.0 Hectares, comprised in S.No.384/1A & 384/1B Myvaadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar,

¶10

Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 M/s Dr.R.Gouri for R4

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Despite the representations were made to the official respondents by the petitioner on 06.05.2015 and 20.06.2015, as no further orders were passed, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the orders of the third respondent dated 24.07.2012 in T.R.No.19 of 1998 and record the tenancy of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Records of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 for the lands measuring about 1.35.0 Hectares, comprised in S.No.384/1A & 384/1B Myvaadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk.

¶14

When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that an appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2012 made in T.R.No.19 of 1998 in the month of September, 2015 with an application for condonation of delay filed in I.A.No.206 of 2015.

¶15

The mere fact that the appal has been filed, though admittedly after the period of three years, by itself cannot be a ground to deny the relief sought for. However, any order to be passed by the third respondent regarding the claim of the petitioner as a cultivating tenant in pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2012 made in T.R.No.19 of 1998 would be subject to the final order, if any, that can be passed in the appeal. In other words, if any order is passed in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 after condonation of delay, then consequently, the recording to be made by the third respondent in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the writ petition will have to be deleted.

¶16

With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to carry out the necessary entry by recording the petitioner as the cultivating tenant by giving effect to the order passed in T.R.No.19 of 1998. It is also made clear that the Appellate Authority will have to decide the application in I.A.No.206 of 2015 seeking for condonation of delay and if it is condoned on merits, then the appeal shall be disposed of on its own merits without being influenced by this order. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

raa

¶23

¶24

1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udumalaipettai,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Madathukulam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
+1 cc to Mr.M.Sivavarthaman, Advocate, sr.65417
W.P.No.23575 of 2015
ar iv
kra 17.12.2015

¶25

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

S.K.Sivarajan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Sivarajan v. The District Collector

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

G.Vasudevan, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Latha W/o.Velu & Velmurugan Vs Union of India rep. by

R.Palanisami Vs The District Collector

Sundaram Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

Mr.G.Kishore Kumar Vs The District Revenue Officer

K.Balu, Vs The Superintendent of Police