Disposed

Easwari v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC5 Dec 2016WP/42645/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the delay in disposing of a 2011 representation regarding an alleged land encroachment. The court directed the District Revenue Officer to conclude the inquiry and pass orders after hearing parties within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the 2nd respondent's representation dated 26.12.2011 within six months after hearing parties.

Easwari Vs The District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.12.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.42645 of 2016

¶6

Easwari ... Petitioner

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the application of the 2nd respondent, which was taken into file of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.5727 of 2011 (Pa2) (application dated 26.12.2011) and dispose of the same within a stipulated time.

¶8

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the 2nd respondent's application dated 26.12.2011 and dispose of the same within a stipulated time.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that a complaint has been lodged against her by one Meenakshi, the 2nd respondent herein by means of an application dated 26.12.2011, wherein, it is alleged that the petitioner has grabbed the land adjacent to the land belonging to the 2nd respondent.

¶10

The 1st respondent, District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri summoned the petitioner for an enquiry and the petitioner attended the Enquiry. It is represented that the last enquiry was conducted on 08.06.2016 and thereafter, no enquiry was conducted.

¶11

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

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent's representation dated 26.12.2011 against the petitioner is pending for a long time and he seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the same within a time frame.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the 1st respondent/District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri to look into the 2nd respondent's representation dated 26.12.2011 against the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶16

Sd/ASST. REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST. REGISTRAR To:

¶17

The District Revenue Officer, Office of District Collector, Dharmapuri.

¶18

+1 cc to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, SR.NO. 76825 +1 cc to Govt. Pleader SR.NO. 72075

¶19

W.P.No.42645 of 2016 MMP 03.01.2017 CO(PVS)

¶20

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

Easwari v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Easwari v. The District Revenue 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

Mrs.Seethalaksmi, Vs The Managing Director

E.Navin Vs The Director of School

Surendran, Vs The Animal Welfare Board

K.Srinivasan Vs The Tahsildhar

M.Sumathi, Vs The Executive Officer

S.Latha Vs The Superintendent of Police