Disposed

Thangavelu v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC11 Nov 2019WP(MD)/22212/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for disposal of a representation regarding a patta dispute, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the District Revenue Officer to dispose of the matter expeditiously within eight weeks, allowing for notice to other parties if required.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent (District Revenue Officer) to dispose of the representation on merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, with provisions for intimating disposa

Thangavelu Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.22212 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.(MD)No.22212 of 2019

Thangavelu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Pudukkottai.

¶7

2.The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to forthwith dispose of the appeal dated 19.03.2019 filed by the petitioner on merit and in accordance with law for patta dispute arising out of UDR proceedings.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.K.K.Mahesh Raja For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer seeking mandamus qua disposal of what according to the writ petitioner is an 'appeal' dated 19.03.2019.

¶12

The prayer in the writ petition refers to respondent in singular, whereas there are two respondents. The respondent concerned has not been mentioned with specificity in the prayer.

¶13

However in the hearing, this Court is informed (without any disputation or disagreement) about two aspects of the matter. One aspect is, aforementioned 19.03.2019 is not an appeal, but a petition (hereinafter 'said representation' for brevity). Second aspect is the authority who has to dispose of said representation is first respondent viz., 'jurisdictional District Revenue Officer' ('said DRO' for brevity).

¶14

To highlight that said DRO or in other words, first respondent is the authority concerned qua rectification of errors/defects in updating register, 'G.O.Ms.No.385, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.[MD]No.22212 of 2019

¶17

17.08.2004' has been pressed into service (hereinafter 'said G.O.' for brevity).

¶18

Most relevant paragraphs of the said Government Order are paragraph Nos.3 and 4, which read as follows:

¶19

' 3.,j;njh;t [ bjhlh;ghf rpwg;g [ Mizah; kw;Wk ; tUtha; eph;thf Mizahplk; mwpf;iff; nfhug;gl ;lJ. Rpwg;g [ Mizah; kw;Wk ; tUtha; eph;thf Mizah; jdJ mwpf;ifapy;> epy clikg;gjpntL jpl;lj ;jpd; fPH; jtWfs; Vw;gl ;oUe ;jhy; mjid tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpanu rhp bra;ayhk; vdt [k ;> Vbddpy;> epy clikg;gjpt[fs ; tl;lhl;rpah; epiyapYs;s mjpfhhpfshy;jhd; gl;lh khWjy; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ vd bjhptpj;Js ;sjhft[k ;> epy clik nkk;ghL jpl;lj ;jpd;fPH; epy chpikahsh;fs ; bgah;fs ; jtWjyhf gjpag;gl ;oUg;gpd; chpa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L Miz gpwg;gpf;Fk ; mjpfhuk; khtl;l tUtha; mjpfhhpf;nf cs;sJ vdt[k ;> vdnt xd;wpy; gof;fg ;gl ;l murhizapd; kz;ly Jiz tl;lhl;rpah;fSf;F tHq;fg;gl ;Ls ;s thpir vz;.23-y; cs;s mjpfhuj;ij ,uj;J bra;ayhk; vd ghpe;Jiw bra;Js ;shh;.

¶20

4.muR ,j;njh;tpid ftdkhf Ma;t [ bra;ajJ. Mizah;> epy msit kw;Wk ; epythpj;jpl;lk ;> rpwg;g [ Mizah; kw;Wk ; tUtha; eph;thf Mizah; MfpnahuJ ghpe;Jiuapid Vw;W epy clikg;gjpntL jpl;lj ;jpd; fPH; gjpt[fspy; jtW Vw;gl ;loUe;jhy; mj;jifa jtWfis khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; jPtu tprhuiz bra;j gpd;dnu rhp bra;a ,aYk; vd;gjhy; murhiz (epiy) vz;.921 tUtha;> ehs;.15.5.91,y; kz;ly Jiz tl;lhl;rpah;fSf;F tHq;fg;gl ;l bghWg;g [fspy; ,Ue;J 23k; ,dj;jpy; cs;s epy clikg; gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj ; jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; Vw;gl ;l jtWfis rhp bra;tJ ( Rectification of defects in the Updating of Registry cases) vd;gij ePf;fp muR MizapLfpwJ. '

¶21

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned State Counsel on behalf of respondents on instructions from an officer from the office of the first respondent who is present in Court, submits that enquiry pursuant to said representation has also been commenced. Saying so, learned State Counsel further submits on instructions that enquiry will be conducted and concluded as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

As this answers the plea / prayer of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to record the stated position of the respondents and direct the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2/3

¶24

W.P.[MD]No.22212 of 2019

¶25

respondent to dispose of said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

In the course of enquiry, if it comes to light that any other person/s or entity/entities other than writ petitioner need to put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity, it is open to the said DRO ie., first respondent to do the same.

¶27

The disposal of said representation or in other words order disposing of said representation shall be communicated by the first respondent to the writ petitioner and others concerned (if any) under due acknowledgment within seven (7) working days from the date of disposal.

¶28

Instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

SSL

¶33

¶34

1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Pudukkottai.

¶35

2.The Tahsildar,

¶36

Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶37

+1 CC to Mr.MUTHUGANESAPANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-97362[F] dated 11/11/2019 )

¶38

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-97746[F] dated 12/11/2019 )

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.22212 of 2019 11.11.2019

¶40

VB(26.11.2019) 3P 5C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Thangavelu v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangavelu 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

G. Vasantha, Vs the District Collector

Mr. a. Packiam, Vs Tmt. Nagarathinam

Mariyappan, Vs the Dean

K.Muniyandi,Head Constable Sr. Vs the Director General

Idol Arulmigu Mahadevar Vs the Competent Authority/ Special District Revenue Officer

J.Premnath Singh Vs The District Collector