Dismissed

R.Janarthanan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC12 Dec 2017WP/3902/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and decide his representation dated 08.08.2016 regarding cancelling a patta granted to the fifth respondent. The court directed the first respondent to consider the representation on merits within 12 weeks and dispose of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

R.Janarthanan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.12.2017 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.3902 of 2017

R.Janarthanan

...Petitioner

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
(incharged Sub Collector),
Ponneri Taluk,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
2.The Thasildhar,
Ponneri Taluk,
Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
Sholavaram,
Ponneri Taluk,
Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
4.The Village Administration Officer,
Attanthangal,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
5.M.Kumar ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to conduct enquiry and dispose of the representation dated on 08.08.2016, pending before the first respondent office.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayakumar For Respondents: Mr.P.V.Selvakumar for R1 to R4 Additional Government Pleader No Appearance for R5

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct enquiry and dispose of his representation dated 08.08.2016, wherein and whereby, he sought for cancelling the patta granted in favour of the fifth respondent and to issue the same in his name.

¶12

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered so far. This court has issued notice to the fifth respondent who in turn entered appearance through the counsel. When the matter was called on 29.11.2017, there was no representation for the fifth respondent and again today, there is no representation for the fifth respondent. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, I only direct the first respondent to consider the representation/appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent dated 08.08.2016 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties including the fifth respondent. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vri To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (incharged Sub Collector), Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

¶13

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

¶14

2.The Thasildhar, Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

¶15

3.The Revenue Inspector, Sholavaram, Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

¶16

4.The Village Administration Officer, Attanthangal, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

¶17

+1 cc to M/s.R.Jayakumar Advocate sr 88392
+1 cc to the Govt Pleader sr 88783
W.P.No.3902 of 2017
sk(co)
aa13/12/2017

¶18

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

R.Janarthanan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Janarthanan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Muthuraman Vs The Regional Passport

G.Vivekanandan, Vs The Chairman Hill Areas

M.Sudhakar, S/o.Mani Vs The Revenue Divisional

V.Manohar Singh, Vs The Commissioner of Food

Shakila Banu Vs The Tahsildar

M/S.Arun Multilayer Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary to Government