Disposed

Saradha v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC13 Mar 2024WP/3241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in this writ petition under Article 226, directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct an enquiry to rectify errors in the UDR Scheme concerning the petitioner's lands. The respondent was ordered to notify interested parties and complete the exercise within eight weeks. The petition was subsequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry with due notice to parties and complete it within eight weeks. Writ petition disposed of.

Saradha Vs the District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3241 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P.No.3241 of 2024

Saradha

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri PIN:635 115.

¶11

2.Nagaraj Reddy ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.11.2023 sent for rectifying the mistake occurred during the UDR Scheme in respect of her lands measuring 1.20 acres and 0.90 acres in S.F.Nos.267/1 and 267/4 situate at Madakondapalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, in accordance with law.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.S.C.Vishwanth for R2

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.3241 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.11.2023 sent for rectifying the mistake occurred during the UDR Scheme in respect of her lands measuring 1.20 and 0.90 acres in S.F.Nos.267/1 and 267/4 situate at Madakondapalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that pending Writ Petition, the 1^st respondent issued a notice in Na.Ka.No.31414/2023/J2 dated 05.02.2024 to the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent, to appear for an enquiry scheduled to be held on 20.03.2024.

¶21

In view of the above submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court directs the 1^st respondent to

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.3241 of 2024

¶25

conduct enquiry, after affording due opportunity to the rival claimants / 2^nd respondent / interested parties / objectors, if any, as the case may be, by serving due notice to all the parties concerned, shall pass appropriate orders, in the manner known to law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

No costs.

13.03.2024

Jer

Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No

¶31

¶32

The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri PIN:635 115.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.3241 of 2024

¶36

P.VELMURUGAN, J.,

¶37

Jer

¶38

W.P.No.3241 of 2024

¶39

13.03.2024

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

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

Saradha v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saradha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baktharatchagan Vs the Sub-Registrar

V.Subramani Vs the Tahsildar

Sushil Lalwani, Vs The Sub Registrar

Senthil Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.Sukumar Vs the District Collector

M.Murugan Vs the Assistant Director of