Allowed

Munusamy v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC21 Sept 2017WP/25421/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition seeking issuance of mandamus. The petitioner challenged the delay in disposal of his revision application submitted on 27.10.2016. The Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the revision within eight weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision dated 27.10.2016 within eight weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

Munusamy Vs The District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.25421 of 2017

¶6

Munusamy ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Sub Collector,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
4.Ellamma @ Lakshumamma ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision dated 27.10.2016 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.R.Rajeswaran,

¶11

Special Government Pleader (R1 to R3) O R D E R

¶12

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

2.The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision dated 27.10.2016 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶14

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

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has filed the revision before the 1^st respondent as early as on 27.10.2016, the same has not yet been disposed of by the 1^st respondent.

¶16

4.Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within a time frame in accordance with law.

¶17

5.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 1^st respondent to dispose of the revision dated 27.10.2016 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VIII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
va
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Sub Collector,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
+ 2 cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate,SR.70421,70566
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.69823
W.P.No.25421 of 2017
BR(CO)
NR 11/10/2017

¶19

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

Munusamy v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munusamy 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

Taimore Ali Khan, Vs State rep. by Inspector

S.Vijayanand Vs District Collector

M/s.v.Link System (P) Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

B.Bhuvaneshwari Vs The District Collector

Sri Shakthi kailamman Temple Vs The Collector

K.K.M.Sambanthan Naicker, Vs The Tahsildar