Remanded

Manickam, S/o.Dhanapal, v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Feb 2018WP/3035/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass final orders regarding an assignment cancellation notice. The Court directed the respondent to pass final orders on merits within eight weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing, without expressing a view on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on merits within eight weeks after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons.

Manickam, S/o.Dhanapal, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.3035 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.3707 of 2018

¶6

Manickam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Tasildhar,
Tandarampet Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District ... Respondents

¶7

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to pass orders in proceedings in Na.Ka.A4/9918/2016 dated 17.08.2017 after considering the representation dated 19.01.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan For Respondents : Mr.B.Anandan, Government Advocate

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Mr.B.Anandan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to pass final order in pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner in Na.Ka.A4/9918/2016 dated 17.08.2017 based on the objections raised by the petitioner to the said notice dated 19.01.2018. It is claimed by the petitioner that the subject matter property is in his

¶12

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

¶13

continuous possession and enjoyment for long number of years, with which, the respondents cannot claim any right or title. It is stated that the 2^nd respondent, however, issued a notice to the petitioner on 20.09.2017 based on his own proceedings dated 17.08.2017 and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject matter shall not be cancelled. It is stated that the petitioner by way of his explanation/ objection dated 19.01.2018 informed the respondent that the proposed action cannot be taken against the petitioner. Now, the 2^nd respondent has to pass the final order, which according to the petitioner, has not been passed so far.

¶14

Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other interested persons, if any. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

-sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Tasildhar,
Tandarampet Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District
+1 C.C. to The Government Pleader, SR.NO. 10968
+1 C.C. to MR.G.Rajan Advocate SR.NO.10548

¶16

W.P.No.3035 of 2018

¶17

VS 26.02.2018

¶18

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

Manickam, S/o.Dhanapal, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manickam, S/o.Dhanapal, v. The District Collector

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

Mrs. Komala Krishnamurthy, Vs the Inspector General

M.Govindhasamy, Vs The Sub Registrar -

M.Gokulsaun (Minor), Vs The District Collector

Kannusamy, Vs The District Collector

P.Bakthavatchalam, Vs The District Collector

K.Kuppan, Vs The Executive Engineer