Remanded

M.R. Syed Ibrahim, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC2 Nov 2016WP(MD)/6948/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court considered a writ petition filed for a Writ of Certiorari. The Court held that the impugned order passed without an opportunity of hearing was illegal. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the first respondent to decide afresh after giving a hearing to parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.04.2013 set aside; matter remitted to first respondent to decide afresh after hearing within three months.

M.R. Syed Ibrahim, Vs the District Revenue… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.11.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.6948 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013

¶7

M.R.Syed Ibrahim ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶11

S.Malai Raj ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.B1-24082013 dated 05.04.2013 and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr.H.Mohamed Imran

¶14

for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Guru Additional Govt. Pleader For R3 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.B1-2408-2013, dated 05.04.2013 and quash the same as illegal.

¶17

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 05.04.2013, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, it is illegal and void in the eye of law.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order of the first respondent, dated 05.04.2013, is set aside and if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent directing him to decide the matter, afresh, on merits and in accordance with

¶19

¶20

law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the third respondent, within a specified period.

¶21

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, have no objection for such an order being passed by this court.

¶22

In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 05.04.2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, to pass an order, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as the third respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

This writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

¶29

The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶30

2.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶31

+1cc to M/s.Ajmal Associates, in SR.65230 +1cc to Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Advocate in SR.65338

¶32

W.P(MD)No.6948 of 2013 02.11.2016

¶33

akv PBK/EM-MPA/SAR-I 02.01.2017 ::2P-5C:(IT)

¶34

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

M.R. Syed Ibrahim, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Syed Ibrahim, 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

N.Sengottaiyan, Vs Shanmughavadivu

Gunasekaran Vs Elangovan

C.Jayanthi, Vs the Tamil Nadu State Transport

S.Sabitha, Vs the Chairman, the Teachers -

J. Joseph Amaladoss, Vs the Registrar

R. Celin Rajakkannu, Vs the Joint Commissioner of