Partly allowed

P.Ponnupandi v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC5 Jul 2017CMP(MD)/5416/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court denied leave to file a writ appeal challenging an order regarding land re-classification. It held no positive direction was issued, but granted liberty to challenge the Revenue Authorities' final action.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file writ appeal denied; liberty granted to challenge Revenue Authorities' action and to seek possession if aggrieved by reconsideration.

P.Ponnupandi Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the Fifth day of July Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Honble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Honble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CMP(MD) No.5416 of 2017 IN WA(MD) No.SR18581 of 2017

¶6

P.PONNUPANDI ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/

¶7

3rd PARTY

¶8

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶10

2 K.JEYAKODI ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/appellant to file writ appeal against the order dated 22.2.2017 made in W.P(MD) No.2978 of 2017 on the file of this Honourable Court pending disposal of the main writ appeal and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court

¶12

WP(MD).No.2978 of 2017:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and dispose the representation dated 12.10.2015 in petition No.J4/48734/15 presented to rectify the mistake crept in the Natham Survey Register as street in S.No.361/10 i.e. within the petitioner plot on the southern side within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.MALAIKANI, Advocate for the petitioner and of

¶14

Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate for R1, the court made the following order:-

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J. )

¶16

Leave has been sought for by the petitioner on the ground that only in pursuant to the order passed by this Court on the writ proceedings initiated by the petitioner, action was taken against the petitioner. However, in the writ petition, in view of the representation made by the writ petitioner seeking re-classification of the land, this Court has directed the Revenue Authorities to consider the representation. Now, taking advantage of the order, the writ petitioner is trying to protect the possession.

¶17

2.This court is afraid that the said submission cannot be the ground for challenging the order in the writ petition and he can claim possession, if he is aggrieved only the consideration made by the writ petitioner. Therefore, there is no positive direction issued by this Court.

¶18

3.In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to allow this application. However, if no order is passed on the representation of the writ petitioner, the petitioner herein can approach the Revenue Authorities and in that eventuality the petitioner will have to be heard before disposing of the said representation. Incidentally, liberty is also given to the petitioner to challenge the action of the Revenue Authorities, who is directed to pass an order by the learned Single Judge, if he is aggrieved.

sd/-

05/07/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

¶24

THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI.

¶25

+1. C.C. to M/S.S.MALAIKANI Advocate SR.No.63557

¶26

SM:RR-BS:SAR 2:12.7.2017:2P/3C

¶27

ORDER

¶28

¶29

CMP(MD) No.5416 of 2017 IN

¶30

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

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WA(MD) No.SR18581 of 2017 Date :05/07/2017

P.Ponnupandi v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ponnupandi 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

M.Samydurai Vs M.Darmaraj

Anjelo Mery Vs the Superintendent of Police

U.Anandan Pillai Vs the District Collector

The Secretary Vs v.John

Abdul Ajeesh Vs Santhi

S.Gunasekaran, Vs Gnanathiraviyam