Disposed

Venkataramanappa @ v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC15 Feb 2018WP/3295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court directed the District Revenue Officer to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2018 regarding the cancellation of Patta Nos 2463 and 1177 for Survey No 209/3, specifying a timeline of 12 weeks for action after hearing interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 03.01.2018, hear the petitioner and interested persons, and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

Venkataramanappa @ Vs The District Revenue Officer — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.3295 of 2018

¶6

Venkataramanappa @ Venkataramulu S/o.Late Nallappa @ Munikadu .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The District Revenue Officer
Collector Office
Krishnagiri District.

¶8

The Sub Collector Sub-Collector Office Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶9

The Tahsildar Taluk Office Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶10

Mr.Muniyappa 5. Smt.Kamalamma 6. Mr.Venkatesh Reddy

¶11

Mr.Syed Ubethullah 8.Mr.Rajasekar .. Respondents

¶12

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2018 and pass orders for cancellation of Patta Nos.2463 and 1177 relating to Survey No.209/3 of Thorapalli Agraharam (Thippalam Village), Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharathkumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Anandan Government Advocate for R1 to R3

¶14

Mr.B.Anandan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Since this writ petition is being disposed of, without affecting the interest of the respondents 4

¶15

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

¶16

to 8, notice to the those respondents is dispensed with.

¶17

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 03.01.2018, wherein and whereby, he sought for cancellation of Patta Nos.2463 and 1177, relating to Survey No.209/3 of Thorapalli Agraharam (Thippalam Village), Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the said representation has not been considered so far. This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the first respondent to consider and decide the same. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, only by directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.01.2018 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the other interested persons, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1. The District Revenue Officer
Collector Office
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Sub Collector
Sub-Collector Office
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Tahsildar
Taluk Office
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
+1cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate SR.No.12205

¶20

W.P.No.3295 of 2018 SVI(CO) GN(01/03/2018)

¶21

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

Venkataramanappa @ v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkataramanappa @ 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

J.Krishnakumar, Vs The Commissioner

A.Senthil, Vs Inspector of Police

Ambayiram, Vs The Revenue Tahsildar

P.Poongothai, Vs The District Collector

Ajantha, Vs The District Collector

K. Sankari Vs The Revenue Divisional officer