The High Court of Judicature at Madras closed the filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders of the third respondent before the appropriate appellate authority.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings before the District Revenue Officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 18.01.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
W.P. No.1072 of 2017 & W.M.P.No.1027 of 2017
R.Sundaramoorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
2.The Sub Collector,
Sub Collectorate Office,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sathyamangalam Taluk Office,
Erode District.
4.M.Subramaniam
5.M.Shanmugam ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to impugned
orders passed by the third respondent, in Mu.Mu.7793/2014/S1,
dated 31.07.2014 and confirm by the second respondent in his
proceedings in Pa.Mu.10326/2013/A2, dated 17.10.2016 and to
quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and
consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to delete the
names of the respondents 4 & 5 for an extent of 1.51.0 hectares
(1-acres, 0.51 hectares) in Patta No.250, in RS.No.108/4 and
corresponding Old S.F.No.136/A, situated No.69, Maarayeepalayam
Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.
For Petitioner : Mr.MA.P.Thangavel For Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr.A.Kumar Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to impugned orders passed by the third respondent, in Mu.Mu.7793/2014/S1, dated 31.07.2014 and confirmed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.10326/2013/A2, dated 17.10.2016 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to delete the names of the respondents 4 and 5 for an extent of 1.51.0 hectares (1-acres, 0.51 hectares) in Patta No.250, in RS.No.108/4 and corresponding Old S.F.No.136/A, situated at No.69, Maarayeepalayam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.
2.Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that there is an appeal provision available to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings before the District Revenue Officer.
3.In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings before the concerned appellate authority, namely, District Revenue Officer. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar sri To 1.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.
2.The Sub Collector, Sub Collectorate Office, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
3.The Tahsildar, Sathyamangalam Taluk Office, Erode District.
+1cc to Mr.MA.P.Thangavel, Advocate Sr.4035 [30/01/2017]
W.P. No.1072 of 2017
sk[co]
srg 18/01/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be closed in favor of an appeal before the appellate authority.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the proceedings before the District Revenue Officer without a writ.
R.Sundaramoorthy
The District Collector
B.RAJENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
