Disposed¶27

P.Aruchamy v. District Revenue Officer

Madras HC5 Jan 2026WP/50221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; WP No. 50221 of 2025; decided 05-01-2026; time-bound disposal of revenue revision dated 08.12.2025 pending before District Revenue Officer, Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district; Revenue Divisional Officer; Tahsildar; fourth respondent V.Varatharaj objections to be heard; principles of natural justice; 4-month deadline; no opinion on merits; notice dispensed with; no costs.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to dispose of the petitioner's revision dated 08.12.2025 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. No costs. ¶27

P.Aruchamy Vs District Revenue Officer — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's revision dated 8.12.2025 within a time frame fixed by the High Court.

¶15

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision dated 08.12.2025 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent and by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

¶27

Key takeaways

The Court expressly expresses no opinion on the merits of the petitioner's revision; the merits remain open to be decided by the first respondent.obiter¶26
Since no adverse order is being passed against the fourth respondent in this writ petition, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J.), WP No. 50221 of 2025, decided 05-01-2026 — P.Aruchamy v. District Revenue Officer and others. Petition filed for a limited relief: a direction to the first respondent, District Revenue Officer, Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district, to dispose of the petitioner's revision dated 08.12.2025 within a time frame. Held: no prejudice would be caused to the official respondents; since no adverse order was being passed against the fourth respondent (V.Varatharaj), notice to him was dispensed with. Writ petition disposed of by directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision dated 08.12.2025 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within 4 months from receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits of the revision. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 50221 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 50221 of 2025

P.Aruchamy

Petitioner(s)

District Revenue Officer o/o. District Revenue officer, Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district 642126

¶10

2.Revenue Divisional Officer O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district 642126

¶11

3.The Tahsildar Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district 642126

4.V.Varatharaj

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the Revision preferred by the petitioner dated 8.12.2025 with in a time frame as fixed by this Honble court and pass

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A. Ansar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, Govt Advocate For R1 To R3 R4 - N D/w

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 50221 of 2025

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a limited relief.

¶21

2.The petitioner seeks for an early disposal of his revision dated

¶22

08.12.2025 pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶23

3.Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is being passed against

¶24

the fourth respondent in this writ petition, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

¶25

4.No prejudice would be caused to the official respondents if a direction is issued to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's revision dated 08.12.2025 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

¶26

5.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's revision.

¶27

6.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision dated 08.12.2025 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. No costs.

¶28

vga

¶29

05-01-2026

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 50221 of 2025

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 50221 of 2025

¶34

¶35

1.District Revenue Officer o/o. District Revenue officer, Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district 642126

¶36

2.Revenue Divisional Officer O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district 642126

¶37

3.The Tahsildar Udumalaipet, Tiruppur district 642126

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 50221 of 2025

¶40

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

¶41

vga

¶42

WP No. 50221 of 2025

¶43

05-01-2026

¶44

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

P.Aruchamy v. District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Aruchamy v. District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sivaprakasam Vs District Collector

M/S. Winwin Logistics ( India ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Customs

Muthusamy Vs the Tahsidlar

Meenakshisundaram Vs The District Revenue Officer

V.Dhanasekaran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

P. Damodharan Vs the District Collector