Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

J Ranganathan vs The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai And Others

Madras High Court|19 September, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.09.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.25039 of 2017 J.Ranganathan ...Petitioner v.
1. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District
3. The Tahsildar Chetpet Taluk Tiruvannamalai District
4. The Sub Registrar Chetpet Chetpet Taluk Tiruvannamalai District
5. J.Chandrasekaran ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose the appeal of the petitioner dated 09.05.2017 to cancel the separate patta issued in favour of the 5th respondent in Survey No.413/1C of Pazhampettai Village, Chetpet Taluk and Tiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Govt. Pleader - for R1 to R4 O R D E R Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents1 to 4. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of his appeal dated 09.05.2017 to cancel the separate patta issued in favour of the 5th respondent in Survey No.413/1C of Pazhampettai Village, Chetpet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has filed the appeal before the 2nd respondent as early as on 09.05.2017, the 2nd respondent has not disposed of the same yet.
4. Mr.R.Rajeswaran learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the 2nd respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 09.05.2017 and pass orders in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
costs.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No 19.09.2017 Index: Yes/No Note : Issue the copy of the order by 22.09.2017 Rj To
1. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District
3. The Tahsildar Chetpet Taluk Tiruvannamalai District
4. The Sub Registrar Chetpet Chetpet Taluk Tiruvannamalai District M.DURAISWAMY,J.
Rj W.P.No.25039 of 2017 19.09.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

J Ranganathan vs The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
19 September, 2017
Judges
  • M Duraiswamy