Disposed

G.Munivenkatappa v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC28 Jan 2022WP/1154/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court directed the District Revenue Officer to consider a representation, conduct an enquiry after notice, and rectify defects in the UDR Scheme regarding land extent within 12 weeks without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 20.10.2021, conduct an enquiry after notice, and pass orders to rectify defects within 12 weeks.

G.Munivenkatappa Vs The District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P. No.1154 of 2022

¶6

G.Munivenkatappa ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

1.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri

¶9

2.G.Nenjundappa ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to consider and pass orders in the petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2015 sent by the petitioner for rectifying the defects occurred during UDR Scheme in respect of the extent of his lands in SF.No.155/6 situated at Kakkadasam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vedi

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Writ Petition has been filed for direction directing the first respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2015 sent for rectifying the defects occurred during UDR Scheme in respect of the extent of his lands in SF.No.155/6 situated at Kakkadasam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

¶14

Heard, Mr.T.Vedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition, the first respondent is directed to consider the

¶16

representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2021 and conduct enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and the second respondent and giving them opportunity of hearing, and pass orders to rectify the defects occurred during UDR Scheme in respect of the extent of the petitioner's lands in SF.No.155/6 situated at Kakkadasam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶17

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

lok

¶22

¶23

The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate Sr.NO. 5443

¶25

W.P. No.1154 of 2022

¶26

SSN(CO) A.SK(10.02.2022)

¶27

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

G.Munivenkatappa v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Munivenkatappa 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

Thirumallappa Vs The District Revenue Officer

Kalyan Chetty Vs The District Collector

R.Karthikeyan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Sheela Clementina Vs The State rep. by

P.Shanmugam Vs The District Registrar

M.Shanthi Vs The Tahsildar