Disposed

Ganesan v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Madras HC7 Feb 2023WP(MD)/2406/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held a writ petition filed to quash an eviction order and call for records regarding a pending revision appeal. The court, hearing both parties, directed the primary respondent to consider the pending revision petition within 12 weeks and kept the impugned eviction order in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the revision petition within 12 weeks and keep the impugned eviction order in abeyance.

Ganesan Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2406 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.2406 of 2023 and

¶9

W.M.P.(MD)No.2189 of 2023

Ganesan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, 2^nd Floor,

¶14

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶15

2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶16

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

4.The Tahsildar,

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.2406 of 2023

¶21

4.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuzhi, Virudhunagr District. ... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in Na.Ka.No.AA1/5047/2021 dated 23.01.2023 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose the petitioner's revision petition dated 25.01.2023.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, Government Advocate.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶26

The Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in Na.Ka.No.AA1/5047/2021 dated 23.01.2023 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose the petitioner's revision petition dated 25.01.2023.

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.2406 of 2023

¶31

2. Heard Mr.R.Murugappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents.

¶32

3 . By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶33

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as against the notice issued under Section 6 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905' [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], the petitioner has filed an appeal on 17.06.2022, before the 1^st respondent under Section 10 of the Act. The second respondent has rejected the said appeal through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.AA1/5047/2021, dated 30.12.2022. As against the rejection order, the petitioner has filed a revision petition dated 25.01.2023, before the 1^st respondent and the same is pending. In the meantime, the 4^th respondent has passed the impugned eviction order. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.2406 of 2023

¶38

5 . The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's revision petition dated 25.01.2023 will be considered and necessary orders will be passed in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶39

6. In view of the above submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's revision petition dated 25.01.2023 and pass orders on it is own merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. Till such time, the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent shall be kept in abeyance.

¶40

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 07.02.2023

¶42

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.2406 of 2023

¶46

¶47

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, 2^nd Floor, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶48

2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶49

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶50

4.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuzhi, Virudhunagr District.

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.2406 of 2023

¶54

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶55

vsm

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.2406 of 2023

¶57

07.02.2023

¶58

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶59

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

Ganesan v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

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

Mohamed Muhibullah Vs M/s.Cholamandalam Investment

Tamilarasi Vs The District Collector

Senthilvel.S Vs The Authorised Officer

Dharmaraj.M Vs the Authorised Officer

Kumarasamy R Vs The District Collector

Karthikeyan. K Vs The Chief Manager / Authorized Officer