Dismissed

Ganesan.K v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Jan 2022WP(MD)/220/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a representation regarding surplus land. After noting that a notice declaring the land holdings surplus was issued, the court held that such notice is not suitable for adjudication in the writ petition and dismissed the matter, granting liberty to appeal against the Tahsildar's order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without merits; liberty granted to file appeal against Tahsildar's order before Revenue Divisional Officer.

Ganesan.K Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.220 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.01.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.(MD)No.220 of 2022

¶3

K.Ganesan ... Petitioner

¶4

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶5

2.The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 04.12.2021.

¶7

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran For Respondents :Mr.S.Shanmugal Additional Government Pleader

¶8

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Let met not hold on to the Writ Petition any further, since it is informed by Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Counsel for the petitioner that he had in turn informed by Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents that the Tahsildar, Manamelkudi, Pudukottai District, had issued a notice to the petitioner that his land holdings are surplus. Naturally, the petitioner will have to question that particular notice/proceedings/order in manner known to law.

¶11

2.In view of that particular development, there need not any adjudication in the present Writ Petition. Therefore, without entering into any merits, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to question the order of the Tahsildar, Manamelkudi, by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi. No costs.

¶12

Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶13

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

¶14

1/2

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.220 of 2022

¶16

cmr

¶17

¶18

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶19

2.The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi.

¶20

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.220 of 2022 12.01.2022

¶21

nsn(CO) TR(03.02.2022) 2P 4C

¶22

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

¶23

2/2

Ganesan.K v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan.K v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karpagam Vs the Special Tahsildar

Thirunavukarasu Vs the District Collector

Govindharasu Vs the Thasildar

R.Pandiganesh Vs the District Collector

Sarojini Elango. K Vs the District Collector

Arulappan Vs the District Collector