Allowed

Tmt. a. Kamatchiammal v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC19 Jan 2023WP(MD)/14286/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking the quashing of an order remitting a matter for a 'discreet enquiry'. The court directed the second respondent to conduct a full enquiry after hearing parties and dispose of the 10-year-old appeal within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry after hearing parties and dispose of the appeal within 12 weeks.

Tmt. a. Kamatchiammal Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013

¶7

1.A.Kamatchiammal (died)

¶8

2.V.Alamarathan @ Virumandi

¶9

3.A.Virumandi

¶10

(P3 has been impleaded vide order dated 19.01.2023)

¶11

...Petitioners

¶12

/vs./

¶13

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District.

¶14

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶15

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

¶16

4.Alagammal

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013

¶20

5.M.Muthupandi 6.A.Mapillaisamy 7.A.Karmagam 8.Malarkodi

¶21

(R6 to R8 have been impleaded vide order dated 19.01.2023)

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.88846/2008/G2 dated 03.07.2013 and quash the same and may consequently direct the Revenue Authorities to maintain the status quo by confirming the order of the second Respondent in NI.Mu.11023/05- dated 04.02.2008.

¶24

For	Petitioners	: Mr.S.Sankar
For	R1 to R3	: Mr.V.OM.Prakash Government Advocate
For	R4 & R5	: Mr.K.Muraleedharan
For	R6	: Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
For	R8	: No appearance

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The writ petition is seeking for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for

¶27

records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.88846/2008/G2 dated 03.07.2013 and to quash the same and

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013

¶31

consequently to direct the revenue authorities to maintain the status quo by confirming the order of the second Respondent in NI.Mu.11023/05- dated 04.02.2008.

¶32

2.Heard Mr.S.Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶33

Mr.V.OM.Prakash, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, Mr.A.Sivasubramanian, learned counsel for the sixth respondent and none appears for the 8^th respondent.

¶34

3.By the impugned order, the first respondent herein had set aside the ex

¶35

parte order passed by the second respondent and had remitted back the matter to the file of the second respondent to be disposed of in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned. The first respondent had also set aside the order of the second respondent and directed status quo to be maintained, which is maintained till date. But however, while remanding the matter back, the first respondent had specifically stated 'remanded back to the second respondent for discreet enquiry'. This direction to conduct the discreet enquiry, in my view, is not

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013

¶39

proper. In other aspects, I do not find any error in the order passed by the first respondent.

¶40

4.In view of the same, the second respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry after hearing all the parties concerned by affording them reasonable opportunity and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending for nearly about 10 years, I direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

5.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

Speaking	: Yes / No	19.01.2023
NCC	: Yes / No
Internet	: Yes / No
Index	: Yes / No
mm

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013

¶46

¶47

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District.

¶48

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶49

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013

¶53

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶54

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.14286 of 2013

¶56

19.01.2023

¶57

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

¶58

6/6

Tmt. a. Kamatchiammal v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt. a. Kamatchiammal 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

M. Selvam, Vs the Passport Officer

A.Nagoor Vs the District Collector

Vijayan, Vs the Inspector General of

L. Sathish, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thangaraj Vs the Director General of Police

T. Natarajan, Vs the District Collector