Disposed

V.Dayalan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC8 Nov 2019WP/26682/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider a representation for cancelling a land sub-division. The order recorded that the representation was under consideration and that the inquiry would be completed within three months due to a pending civil dispute over the land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; no costs awarded; the respondent is directed to complete the inquiry on the representation within three months.

V.Dayalan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated:08.11.2019

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.26682 of 2019

¶6

V.Dayalan .. Petitioner /versus/ 1.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Office, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District 635 115. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District.

¶7

3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶8

4.Mr.K.Vijayakumar 5.Mr.R.Ramasamy Reddy .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2019 for cancellation of sub division made in Survey No.759/3 vide Patta No.2963 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and keep the revenue records in Survey No.759/3 covered by patta No.2339 as per the proceeding issued by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.520/2007/J2, dated 23.01.2008 till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.68/2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner:Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

¶11

For Respondents:Mr.D.Raja, AGP for R1 to R3 Mr.G.M.Anantha Kumar for R4 Ms.R.Poornima for R5

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2019 for cancellation of sub division made in Survey No.759/3 vide Patta No.2963 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and keep the revenue records in Survey No.759/3 covered by patta No.2339 as per the proceeding issued by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.520/2007/J2, dated 23.01.2008 till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.68/2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶15

2.The petitioner herein aggrieved by the sub division made in patta No.2963 and 2339 has given a representation on 20.05.2019 to cancel the sub division. The said representation is pending with the second respondent.

¶16

3.After notice, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsels for respondents 4 and 5 appeared before this Court and submitted that there is a civil suit pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur in O.S.No.68 of 2008 between the petitioner and the private respondent No.5. In any event, the representation of the petitioner to cancel of sub division made in S.No.759/3 in Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District is taken up for enquiry and the representation of the petitioner is under consideration.

¶17

4.The 2^nd respondent has filed a status report wherein it is stated that there is a dispute over the said land between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 for several years. While the land in S.No.759/3A measuring 0.56.0 hectare is under possession and enjoyment of the 5^th respondentRamasamy Reddiar and 6 others, the land in S.No.759/3B2 measuring 0.24.32 hectare is under possession and enjoyment of the 4^th respondent-Tmt.Vijayalakshmi and two others and also a civil suit is pending between some of the parties in respect of the said property.

¶18

5.In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent has stated that the enquiry initiated based on the representation of the petitioner will be completed and after enquiry, orders will be passed within a period of three months.

¶19

6.Recording the same, the wirt petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

To:

¶26

1.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Office, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District 635 115. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District. 3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. +1cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate SR.No.93435 +1cc to Ms.R.Poornima, Advocate SR.No.93153 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.93768 W.P.No.26682 of 2019 VBA(CO) GMY(26/11/2019)

¶27

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

V.Dayalan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Dayalan 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

Turbo Engineers (Cbe) Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

S.Pattammal Vs The Inspector General of

k.sathishkumar Vs The Director

V.Radhika, Vs The District Collector

A.Subramaniyan Vs The District Collector

P.Baskar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu