Disposed

K.Kannapiran, v. The Revenue Divisional

Madras HC9 Feb 2017WP/3246/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to interfere with the authority seized of the matter regarding a pending revenue appeal but directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to expeditiously consider the petitioner's impleading application, noting the petitioner holds the property patta.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Revenue Divisional Officer to consider petitioner's impleading application and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

K.Kannapiran, Vs The Revenue Divisional — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 09.02.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.3246 of 2017

¶6

and WMP.No.3193 of 2017

¶7

K.Kannapiran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Perambalur-621 212.
2.The Tahsildar,
Perambalur Taluk, Perambalur-621 212.
3.K.Silambayee
4.K.Kumar
5.Ponnusamy .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for a writ of Mandamus,
forbearing the first respondent from proceeding the appeal
filed by the respondents 3 to 5 in reference No.PP/16/036317
dated 03.08.2016 till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.360
of 2016 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Perambalur.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent : Mr.A.Kumar Nos.1 & 2 Special Government Pleader O R D E R By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶9

2.The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, to refrain the first respondent from proceeding the appeal filed by the respondents 3 to 5 in reference No.PP/16/036317 dated 03.08.2016 till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.360 of 2016 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

¶10

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.

¶11

4.The only grievance of the petitioner is that in a pending appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, he had given a legal notice dated 25.08.2016, bringing to the attention of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the appellant therein (in the appeal) before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, had already filed a suit in O.S.No.360 of 2016 and the same is pending before the learned District Munsif, Perambalur. Therefore, he only stated that he is a necessary part to the said appeal and he has also filed a petition to implead himself as a necessary party on 27.01.2017. It is stated that neither his notice has been considered nor his application has been taken up by the official respondents. Hence, he has come forward with this present petition.

¶12

5.Suffice to state that the authority is seized of the matter and therefore, this Court will not interfere with the same but only to state that the authority will also consider the impleading application of the petitioner as he is also an interested party to the subject property. It is further directed that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, shall consider the petitioner's impleading application as the patta stands in his name and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after giving notice to the parties concerned.

¶13

6.The writ petition is closed with the above directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. -sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar DP To

¶14

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur-621 212. 2.The Tahsildar, Perambalur Taluk, Perambalur-621 212.

¶15

1 cc to Govet. Pleader SR.NO.8907

¶16

Writ Petition No.3246 of 2017 and WMP.No.3193 of 2017

¶17

MSM[co]

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RR 01/03/2017

K.Kannapiran, v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kannapiran, v. The Revenue Divisional

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

Manickam Vs The District Collector

Tmt.K.Arul Subha Vs The Commissioner of Police

P.Jayapal, Vs The Sub Registrar

K.Kulandaivel Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Murthy Vs the Assistant Legal Advisor &

V.Kanagaraj, Vs the Inspector of Police