Dismissed

Subramanian v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC21 Dec 2022WP(MD)/10966/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition withdrawn. The court noted that the petitioner's request to cancel a patta had been rejected via a memorandum dated 10.12.2018. The court dismissed the petition with liberty to question the rejection as per law, holding no handling necessity at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to question the rejection of his request in the manner known to law before this Court.

Subramanian Vs the District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10966 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10966 of 2019

Subramanian

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer,, Paramasivapuram, Lalgudi, Trichy District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District.

¶12

3.The Thasildar, Lalgudi Taluk, Lalgudi, Trichy District. 4.Chinnasamy ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1,

¶14

to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2019 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court after giving opportunity to the 4th respondent herein.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P(MD)No.10966 of 2019

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,

¶20

Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3. Mr.V.Ilanchezian for R4.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶23

2.The petitioner seeks cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the fourth respondent and for entering his name.

¶24

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent brought to my notice that the petitioner's request was rejected vide memorandum dated 10.12.2018. The petitioner has to necessarily question the said communication in the manner known to law.

¶25

4.With this liberty to the writ petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

21.12.2022

¶27

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶28

2/4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P(MD)No.10966 of 2019

¶31

To:

¶32

1.The District Revenue Officer,, Paramasivapuram, Lalgudi, Trichy District.

¶33

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District.

¶34

3.The Thasildar, Lalgudi Taluk, Lalgudi, Trichy District.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/4

¶37

W.P(MD)No.10966 of 2019

¶38

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶39

ias

¶40

W.P(MD)No.10966 of 2019

¶41

21.12.2022

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Subramanian v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahul Hameed Vs the District Collector

Jesu Rathinam Vs Vasantha

Apex Heart Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary Member

S.Rajeswari, W/O.Seethapathi Vs the District Collector

A.Umadevi Vs the Chairman

Muthulakshmi(Deceased), Vs the Commissioner