Petitioner challenged revenue orders seeking declaration as tenant. Matter was not represented; High Court dismissed petition for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10-06-2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
WRIT PETITION No.10087 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
...Petitioner
R.Kalyana sundaram ...Petitioner vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary Department of Revenue Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 9 2. The District Revenue Officer O/o. The Collectorate at Cuddalore Cuddalore District 3. The District Revenue Officer (Revenue Court) (South Arcot Vallalar District) Cuddalore District 4. The Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) O/o. The Special Deputy Collector Cuddalore District 5. The Record Officer-cum-Tahsildar Kattumannarkoil, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District 6. P.Somasundaram ...Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 17.9.2014 passed by the District Revenue Officer in his Office Ref.No.Na.Ka.G1/8108/2014 and the order dated 20.3.2014, passed by the fourth respondent, in his Office Ref.No. TRAP.05/2012 and quashing the same and directing the respondents 3 and 4 to record the name of the petitioner and the petitioner's father P.Rangaswamy as cultivating tenants in respect of the lands measuring 0.64 cents and
1.00 cent comprised in S.Nos.239/2A and 28/2 respectively at Omampuzhiyur Village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District.
ORDER
When the matter was listed on 15.4.2015, it was called twice both in the morning as well as in the afternoon, and on both occasions, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, it was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, when the matter is called in the afternoon, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nsv
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai 9
2. The District Revenue Officer
O/o. The Collectorate at Cuddalore
Cuddalore District
3. The District Revenue Officer
(Revenue Court)
(South Arcot Vallalar District)
Cuddalore District
4. The Special Deputy Collector
(Revenue Court)
O/o. The Special Deputy Collector
Cuddalore District
W.P.No.10087 of 2015
TS (CO) PSI (22.06.2015)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Kalyana sundaram
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary Department of Revenue
The District Revenue Officer O/o. The Collectorate at Cuddalore
The Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court)
The Record Officer-cum-Tahsildar Kattumannarkoil
M. Sathyanarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
