Disposed

Selvakumar, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC5 Jan 2017WP(MD)/17479/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding patta cancellation on merits after providing an oral hearing to the other respondents and legal heirs within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to other parties within twelve weeks.

Selvakumar, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.(MD)No.17479 of 2015

¶5

Selvakumar ... Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tuticorin District. 3.Paramasivan 4.Kaniyammal 5.Kasirajan ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent to cancel the patta issued as patta No.1200, 302 and 114 in the name of the Respondents 3 to 5 by the 2^nd Respondent by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 8.7.2015 under Patta Pass Book Act.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Kalamurugappan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. A. Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader For Respondents 3 & 5 : No appearance

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the first respondent to cancel the patta issued in Patta No.1200, 302 and 114 in the name of the respondents 3 to 5 by considering his representation dated 08.07.2015.

¶12

2.Needless to say, it is for the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the other parties including the respondents 3 to 5 herein.

¶13

Therefore, without expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, I only direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 08.07.2015 on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parties including the respondents 3 and 5, and also the legal heirs of the 4^th respondent, who is said to have passed away during the pendency of the writ petition, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the said representation has not been disposed of so far.

¶14

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶18

/TRUE COPY/

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti,

¶22

Tuticorin District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tuticorin District.

¶23

+1 cc to MR.R.MURUGAPPAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO: 1633

¶24

+1cc to M/S.THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO:1305

¶25

¶26

sva/mr/vb/30.01.2017/2p/5c

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.17479 of 2015

¶28

05.01.2017

¶29

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

Selvakumar, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvakumar, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Sivakumar Vs the Joint Director of Health

C.V. Ponnaiah, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

A. Jebakumar, Vs the Passport Officer

B.Boopathy Rajaram Vs the Secretary to Government

D.Sam Packiayaselvan Vs the District Collector

Sheik Dawood Vs the Commissioner