Allowed

T.Peter v. the District Collector

Madras HC26 Jun 2018WP(MD)/13488/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of a pending appeal filed by him within the time stipulated by the Court.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to verify records and conduct an enquiry and complete the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

T.Peter Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13488 of 2018

T.Peter

... Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by

The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶12

The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to dispose of the petition pending on his file in Na.Ka.B4/7883/2017, dated 01.12.2017 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.S.Nagarajan Special Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Mr.S.Nagarajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that he filed an appeal before the second respondent which is pending in Na.Ka.B4/7883/2017, dated 01.12.2017. Even though five months have expired, there is no progress in respect of the enquiry in the above said matter.

¶19

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a direction is issued to the second respondent –

¶22

¶23

District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, to verify or cause to verify the revenue and other records, UDR and other records pertaining to the property in question as to its classification, ownership, possession, enjoyment, rival claims, civil disputes, entitlement, etc., and conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all the parties concerned and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶31

The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶32

- 1 CC TO Mr.S.KARTHICK SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 69850

¶33

RSB

¶34

TE/SV/SAR-4 : 10/07/2018 : 2P/4C

¶35

W.P(MD)No.13488 of 2018 26.06.2018

¶36

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

T.Peter v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Peter 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

Tvl Gemini Iron and Steels Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mayan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Dcw Limited, Vs the State Tax Officer

P.Nagaraj, Vs State Rep.by

Tvl.Sri Adaikalam Kathal Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

Ramaiah Vs the Tahsildar