Disposed

R.Jeyachandran, v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Mar 2022WP/10775/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition invoking Article 226, the petitioner sought quashing of a show cause notice issued in a revision regarding ryotwari patta challenged by the Special Officer. The petitioner's father, on whom the patta was granted, had died. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all points, including jurisdiction, before the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to canvass all points before the second respondent; case to be heard within twelve weeks.

R.Jeyachandran, Vs State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.10775 of 2011 And

M.P.No.1 of 2011

R.Jeyachandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by: The Secretary to Govt.,

¶11

Revenue Department,

¶12

Fort St.George,

¶13

Chennai – 9.

¶14

The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk,

¶15

Chennai – 600 005.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk, Alandur, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer:

¶18

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in K1/51512/01 on the file of the second respondent and quash the show cause notice dated 21.06.2004 issued by the second respondent in K1/51512/01.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran

¶21

Special Government Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in K1/51512/01 dated 21.06.2004 on the file of the second respondent and to

¶24

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

¶25

quash the same.

¶26

2.The case of the petitioner is that the Assistant Settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner's father on 24.12.1999 and the same was challenged by way of suo motu revision at the instigation of the Special Officer. Thereby, the second respondent issued the impugned show cause notice. In response to the same, the petitioner's father filed his objections on 21.07.2004. However, there was no response. The petitioner's father died on 16.07.2005. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶27

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when there is appeal remedy available, suo motu revision is not sustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that though there are arguable points available in the writ petition, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to canvass all the points before the second respondent including the jurisdictional point, in the impugned show cause notice.

¶28

4.In view of the above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, grants liberty to the petitioner to canvass all the points before the second respondent including the jurisdictional point in the impugned show cause notice. The second respondent after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

5.This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

pri

¶35

¶36

The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶37

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

¶38

The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶39

The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk, Alandur, Kancheepuram District.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.G.Krishnakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.13649

¶41

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader, S.R.No.14176

¶42

W.P.No.10775 of 2011 And

¶43

M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶44

SK(CO) CT 07/04/2022

¶45

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

R.Jeyachandran, v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Jeyachandran, v. State of Tamilnadu

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

Subbaiah Vs The District Collector

N.Sridhar, NO.C-7 Icl.Colony Vs the Sub Registrar

S.Noorjahan Vs The District Collector

K.M. Bangaru Raju Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S. Hari Saravanan Vs the District Collector

S.Syed Naveed Vs The District Collector