Dismissed

N.Pavel, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC13 Feb 2018WA(MD)/246/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal filed under the Letters Patent Act, which sought to set aside a previous order. The appeal was withdrawn by the appellant's counsel with the Court's permission. Consequent miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; consequent miscellaneous petitions closed.

N.Pavel, Vs the District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

W.A.(MD)No. 246 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶7

N.Pavel

¶8

.. Appellant Vs.

¶9

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai Revenue Division, Madurai District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, South Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

4.V.Muthuramalingam .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, praying to set aside the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by this court in W.P.(MD).No.6856 of 2011.

¶14

Prayer in WP(MD).No.6856/ 2011 :

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the records relating to the impugned Patta No.1832, Anuppanadi Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai issued by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same as illegal in so far as it relates to the inclusion of Petitioner's land situate in Survey No.70/1B, Anuppanadi Village, Madurai District is concerned and consequentially to direct the Respondents to make necessary mutations in revenue records within the period that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.A.Nawaz Khan for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Murugan

¶17

Government Advocate

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R-4 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan for Mr.V.Rajasekaran

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶22

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, seeks the permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Appeal and he has also made and endorsement to that effect.

¶23

This Court heard the submissions of Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. S.P.Maharajan for M/s.V.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶24

In the light of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015, are closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶30

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai Revenue Division, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, South Taluk, Madurai District.

¶31

+1cc to M/S.V.Rajasekaran, Advocate SR.No. 48319 +1cc to M/S.Ajmal Associates, Advocate SR.No. 48421

¶32

ORDER MADE IN W.A.(MD)No. 246 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 13.02.2018

¶33

VSG/PM

¶34

JM/SV MMS/SAR 3/20.02.2018/2P/6C

¶35

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

N.Pavel, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Pavel, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rathinam Vs the District Collector

A.Ranganathan, Vs the District Collector

S.Athilakshmi,W/O.Srinivasagam Vs the District Collector

M. Muthupandi Vs the District Collector

R.Chokkalingam Vs the District Collector

Kannan Vs the Commissioner