Partly allowed

M.Ganesan v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Apr 2021WP/34409/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to immediately conduct an enquiry and pass a fresh order on a land dispute remanded by the District Revenue Officer within twelve weeks after giving notice to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the issue on merits within twelve weeks by giving notice to both sides.

M.Ganesan Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 34409 of 2018

¶6

M.Ganesan ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶9

2. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶10

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mathuranthagam,

Kancheepuram.

4. Madurai Achari

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 09.10.2018.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj

¶17

Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 09.10.2018.

¶20

2. In respect of the land at S.No.870/11, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, there had been a dispute with regard to issuance of Joint Patta between the petitioner and the rival parties and in this regard, the Tahsildar passed an order, as against which, appeal was filed before the third respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, who has also passed an adverse order, as against the same, the rival parties seems to have approached the District Revenue Officer who after having heard both sides, passed a final order on 02.08.2017, whereby, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 22.08.2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for rehearing and to decide the same afresh.

¶21

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

¶22

3. Thus, pursuant to such an order passed by the District Revenue Officer on 02.08.2017, so far, i.e., till the filling of the Writ Petition, no action has been taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer as no enquiry was conducted and no fresh order was passed, therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶23

4. Heard Mr.K.Thenrajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, despite the order passed by the second respondent / District Revenue Officer as early as on 02.08.2017, till date, no enquiry was conducted by the third respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, a direction may be given to the third respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct the enquiry and pass fresh order as directed by the second respondent / District Revenue Officer in his proceedings dated 02.08.2017.

¶24

5. Heard Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, who, would submit that, if at all, the third respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer has not so far acted upon as per the order of remand made by the second respondent / District Revenue Officer by his order dated 02.08.2017, certainly, the third respondent would immediately act upon and after giving an opportunity of being heard to both parties, a final order would be passed on the issue, as directed by the District Revenue Officer, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶25

6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶26

7. In the order dated 02.08.2017, the second respondent / District Revenue Officer has passed the following order:

¶27

vdnt. jpU/kJiu Mr ; rhhp mth ; fspd ; nky ; KiwaPl ; L kDtpid Vw ; W mtUf ; F jd ; epiyia cWjpgLj ; j nghjpa re ; jh ; g ; g' ; fs mspf ; fg ; gltpy ; iy vdf ; fUjp tUtha ; nfhl ; l mYtyh kJuhe ; jfk ; mth ; fspd ; bray ; Kiwfs ; K/K/vz ; /1277-2011-rp ehs ; 22/08/2013 cj ; jputpd ; go g [ y vz ; /870-11y ; kJiu Mr ; rhhp bgaUld ; jpU.fnzrd ; bgaiu nrh ; j ; J Tl ; Lg ; gl ; lh jhf ; fy bra ; a cj ; jputpl ; lij uj ; J bra ; J ,e ; neh ; tpy ; kPz ; Lk ; , Ujug ; gpdUk ; chpa re ; jh ; g ; gk ; mspj ; J chpa Mtz' ; fis ghprPypj ; J kPz ; Lk ; g [ jpa tprhuizf ; F gpd ; Kot [ hd cj ; jutpid gpwg ; gpf ; f cj ; jutplg ; gLfpwJ/

¶28

8. Despite the said order having been passed and pursuant to which, in fact, the petitioner though has given a representation also on 09.10.2018 to the respondents, it seems that, the third respondent so far has not conducted any enquiry as directed by the second respondent in the order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ remand dated 02.08.2017. Therefore, this Court feels that, a

¶29

direction can be given to the third respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer to act upon immediately as per the order of District Revenue Officer vide his order dated 02.08.2017, by giving notices to both sides and decide the issue within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶30

9. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the third respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer to act upon as per the remand order issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.29532/2014/No.4 dated 02.08.2017 by giving an opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

10. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

vji

¶37

¶38

1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶39

2. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶40

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mathuranthagam, Kancheepuram.

¶41

+1cc to Mr.K.Thenrajan, Advocate SR.No. 23268

¶42

+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 23659

¶43

W.P. No. 34409 of 2018

¶44

UM(CO) B.VC(22.07.2021)

¶45

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

M.Ganesan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganesan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sadhuram Vs The District Revenue Officer

K.Karunanithi, Vs The Collector

C.Sivakumar, Vs The Collector

L.Lakshmi Vs The District Collector

K.Nagarathinam Vs The District Collector

M/s.Capital One Housing and Infrasturcture Vs The State of Tamil Nadu