Disposed

Ambedkarists Forum v. the District Revenue Officer/

Madras HC3 Oct 2018WP/28018/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Revenue Officer to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner within 12 weeks, affording reasonable opportunity to parties, and quashed the interim status without considering the merits of the property claim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit appeal details; First Respondent directed to consider appeal on merits within 12 weeks; Writ petition disposed.

Ambedkarists Forum Vs the District Revenue Officer/ — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.10.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.28018 of 2013 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶6

Ambedkarists Forum ... Petitioner
rep by its
General Secretary P.Karthikeyan
vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer/District Magistrate,
Chennai District,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar,
Mambalam -Guindy Taluk,
Chennai – 600 078.
3. Vai.Jayaraman ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records, relating to the order of the Second Respondent in his proceeding No.M.M.No.E1/1631/2000 dated 11.07.2013 and quash the same and to issue consequential direction to allow the petitioner to continue to be the management of the affairs of the Ambedkarists Forum.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.J.Muthukumaran For Respondents : Mrs.A.Shrijayanthy 1 & 2 Spl.Government Pleader. For Respondent 3 : Mr.G.Thangavelu

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by Tahsildar in proceeding dated 11.07.2013 in respect of the property claimed by the writ petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that against the order of the Tahsildar dated 11.07.2013, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer on 17.09.2013 and the same is yet to be considered.

¶12

In view of the fact that the appeal filed by the writ petitioner is pending and it is for direction granted to dispose of the same and in accordance with law. Thus, the first respondent is directed to consider the appeal submitted by the writ petitioner on 17.09.2013 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned within the period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copy of the appeal and all other relevant documents along with the order passed in this writ petition.

¶14

Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to Costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pkn
To
1. The District Revenue Officer/District Magistrate,
Chennai District,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar,
Mambalam -Guindy Taluk,
Chennai – 600 078.
+1cc to Mr.J.Muthukumaran, Advocate SR.No.68504
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.68534

¶15

W.P.No.28018 of 2013 PA(CO) GMY(29/10/2018)

¶16

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

Ambedkarists Forum v. the District Revenue Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambedkarists Forum v. the District Revenue 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

M/S.Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd Vs Chennai Metropolitan Water

M/S.Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd, Vs the Corporation of Chennai

Mr. P.Balasubramaniam, Vs Union of India

R.Santhanam Vs K.Senathipathi

R.Santhamoorthy, Vs K.Senathipathi

Mrs. Hajiram Bee, Vs The District Revenue Officer