Court corrected a clerical error in an order dated 01.10.2021 regarding the location of the petitioner's property from Kancheepuram to Chennai District. The amended paragraph clarifies the right of appeal and maintenance of status quo.
Order dated 01.10.2021 modified to reflect correct district jurisdiction and clarified appeal rights.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.No.21425 of 2021 and WMP.No.22671 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J. and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
This Writ Petition is listed today under the caption “for being spoken to”
at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
"5. It is not in dispute that as against the order passed by the third respondent under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner is having a right of appeal before the District Collector, Chennai under Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, we hereby permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Collector, Chennai within a period of four weeks. On such receipt, the District Collector, Chennai shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance
1/3
with law. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within a period of four weeks, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law. If the appeal is filed before the District Collector, Chennai, till the disposal of the appeal, the respondents shall not take any further action, in other words, they are directed to maintain status quo as on date. "
2/3
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J. and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
WP.No.21425 of 2021
and WMP.No.22671 of 2021
25.10.2021
3/3
K.KALYANASUNDARAM
V.SIVAGNANAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
