Disposed

Muthuraj,N. v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7052/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, dismissing the merits of a representation, directed the District Revenue Officer to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2017 within four weeks, providing due opportunity to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2017 on its merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Muthuraj,N. Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.04.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.7052 of 2018

¶4

N. Muthuraj ... Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶7

The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti,

¶9

Madurai District.

¶10

The Tahsildhar,

¶11

Peraiyur Taluk Office, Peraiyur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to implement the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.29028/2017/R1 dated 27.06.2017.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Anandan

¶14

For Respondents :Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner that her representation dated 12.06.2017 seeking to implement the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.29028/2017/R1 dated 27.06.2017, has not been considered by the respondents till date and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or the other. Non-consideration of the same would amount to dereliction of ordinary duties of their office and as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such, this Court would be justified in invoking its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct

¶18

¶19

them to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.

¶20

In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2017 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such an exercise shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the persons who may be interested in the subject property. In the light of the communication of the first respondent dated 27.06.2017, it is always open to the petitioner to submit his rejoinder to the representation mentioning the survey number along with supporting documents if any for which FMB is required.

¶21

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed

¶22

of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

To:

¶28

The District Collector,

¶29

Madurai District,

¶30

Madurai.

¶31

The District Revenue Officer,

¶32

Madurai District,

¶33

Madurai.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶35

Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti,

¶36

Madurai District.

¶37

The Tahsildhar, Peraiyur Taluk Office, Peraiyur, Madurai District.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.B.Anandan, Advocate, SR.No.62887

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.7052 of 2018 23.04.2018

¶40

AAV

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KK/JC/04.05.2018/SAR-1/2P-6C

Muthuraj,N. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthuraj,N. 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

C.R.a.O.Mari Vs the Manager

M.Meenakshi Sundaram Vs the Director of Medical

E.T.Seenivasan, Vs K.Ramesh, S/O.M.Krishnan

Santhosh, S/O.K.Raja, Vs the Vice Chancellor

Muthumani Vs the District Collector

Arul Leo Jones, Vs the Registrar, Anna University