Disposed

Munikrishnan, v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC23 Sept 2020WP/35618/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for writ of mandamus sought direction to District Revenue Officer to exclude a respondent's name from a patta. Court directed respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, notice interested parties, and pass orders on merits within eight weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, give notice to interested parties, and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

Munikrishnan, Vs The District Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.35618 of 2016

¶6

Munikrishnan ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

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

¶9

The Sub Collector, Hosur.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District. 4. Chikka Muniyamma ...Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent viz., the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.07.2016 and take necessary action to remove the name of the 4^th respondent in patta No.1312 relating to S.No.181/3A2A Shoolagiri Village, Hosur Taluk, (now Shoolagiri Taluk), Krishnagiri District and issue a patta exclusively in the name of the petitioner within a time frame.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthikeyan for Mr.V.Nicholas For Respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari,

¶13

Additional Government Pleader (R1 to R3)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.07.2016 and to take necessary action to remove the name of the 4^th respondent in Patta No.1312 relating to S.No.181/3A2A Shoolagiri Village, Hosur Taluk, (now Shoolagiri Taluk), Krishnagiri District and to issue a patta exclusively in the name of the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has given his representation as early as on 11.07.2016 to issue a correct patta in his name, the 1^st respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶18

3.Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.07.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties.

¶19

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.07.2016 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri. 2. The Sub Collector, Hosur. 3. The Tahsildar, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District. +1cc to the Government Pleader in SR.NO..31281 +1cc to Mr.V.Nicholas, Advocate in SR.NO..31199

¶21

W.P.No.35618 of 2016

¶22

SVI(CO) RV(20/10/2020)

¶23

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

Munikrishnan, v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munikrishnan, 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

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector

G.Subramanian Vs The Collector

G.Munusamy, Vs The District Collector

S.Manivel, Vs The District Collector

R.Venkatraman Vs The Inspector of General of