Disposed

C.Palanichamy v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC19 Jul 2024WP(MD)/13719/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Madras High Court directed the District Revenue Officer to dispose of the petitioner's appeal regarding UDR mistake on merits within 12 weeks, ensuring notice to interested persons, while reserving the final decision on merits to the respondent authority.

What did the court decide?

Respondent I directed to dispose appeal on merits within 12 weeks giving notice to interested persons.

C.Palanichamy Vs The District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13719 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13719 of 2024

C.Palanichamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the appeal for changing the UDR mistake in Survey No.119/1 and 119/3 situated at Poosaripatti Vllage, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.03.2024 within the stipulated period by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD)No.13719 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

2.The petitioner seeks correction of UDR mistake. The petitioner has rightly sought disposal of the appeal by the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul. But petition was given only to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Releasing the lacuna, the petitioner took adjournment and thereafter submitted representation before the first respondent on 01.07.2024. An additional typed set of papers has been filed and it is seen that therefrom that the petitioner's representation has also been received by the first respondent.

¶20

3.The first respondent is directed to consider the petition mentioned representation and pass final order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. It is for the first respondent to pass order one way or the other. The first respondent shall put the interested persons on notice before passing the final order.

¶21

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

¶22

2/4

¶23

W.P(MD)No.13719 of 2024

¶24

4.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no

¶25

order as to costs.

¶26

19.07.2024

¶27

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA

¶28

¶29

1.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶30

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

W.P(MD)No.13719 of 2024

¶34

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶35

MGA

¶36

W.P(MD)No.13719 of 2024

¶37

19.07.2024

¶38

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

¶39

4/4

C.Palanichamy v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Palanichamy 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

Mala Vs The District Registrar

D.Muthuraja Vs The Tahsildar

Gopinath.P.N.S Vs The Principal Secretary

Minor.Adlan Zishan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Manimaran Vs The District Collector

S.Pandiyan Vs The District Collector