Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC14 Mar 2017WP(MD)/23131/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed for a direction to respondents to consider representations regarding alleged grave demolition. The court recorded the police counter-affidavit denying the allegations and closed the petition with liberty to approach the Civil Forum if interference occurs.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to approach Civil Forum if there is any interference by the 3rd respondent.

Rajesh Kumar, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.23131 of 2016

Rajesh Kumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram,

¶11

Kanyakumari District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

Joice ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31.12.2015 and 27.10.2016.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Addl. Govt. Pleader ***** O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31.12.2015 and 27.10.2016.

¶17

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District has filed a counter affidavit, wherein in Paragraph No.9, it is stated as follows:

¶18

"9.I respectfully submit that my enquiry on the matter very clearly revealed the fact that neither the 3rd respondent herein nor anybody for her behalf attempted to demolish the alleged graves in the above said property at any point of time as alleged in the petition and further the 3rd respondent herein or the original owners of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said property has never prevented the petitioner herein from observing the yearly ritual formalities or tribute over the alleged graves."

¶19

¶20

Recording the same, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Civil Forum, as and when there is any interference by the 3rd respondent. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

To:

¶24

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

¶25

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶26

+1CC to M/S.K.P.Narayana Kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 15236 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No. 14730

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.23131 of 2016

¶28

¶29

AM/SV MMS/28.03.2017/2P/5C

¶30

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

Rajesh Kumar, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar, 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

Nijamuhaideen Vs the Inspector of Police

Usmin Vs Mohamed Younus

M.S. Mohammed Younes Vs Usmin

C.Subbaiyan, Vs Mr.Sivaraj

S.Abdulla, Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Muthuraman Vs the Superintendent of Police