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

R Govindasamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Thiruvannamalai 2 The Thasildar Thandarampattu Taluk Thiruvannamalai District 606 708

Madras High Court|22 September, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.09.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.25475 of 2017 R.Govindasamy ... Petitioner v.
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Thiruvannamalai
2 The Thasildar Thandarampattu Taluk Thiruvannamalai District- 606 708 ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose representation dated 30.05.2017 for grant of patta in favour of writ petitioner in respect of lands in S.No.54/2B of Kuberapattinam Village, Melmuthanur, Madhura, Thandarampattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, after conducting proper enquiry and survey of entire extent of property in S.No.54/2B within the time period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Seshachari For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai Addl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. 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 respondents to dispose of the representation dated 30.05.2017 for grant of patta in his favour in respect of lands in S.No.54/2B of Kuberapattinam Village, Melmuthanur, Madhura, Thandarampattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, after conducting proper enquiry and survey of entire extent of property in S.No.54/2B within a time frame.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2017 for the grant of patta, the 2nd respondent has not passed any order so far.
4. Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2017, and pass orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks.
5. Having regard to 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 representation dated 30.05.2017 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.
With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Index: Yes/No Rj To
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Thiruvannamalai
2 The Thasildar Thandarampattu Taluk Thiruvannamalai District- 606 708 22.09.2017 M.DURAISWAMY,J.
Rj W.P.No.25475 of 2017 22.09.2017
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

R Govindasamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Thiruvannamalai 2 The Thasildar Thandarampattu Taluk Thiruvannamalai District 606 708

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
22 September, 2017
Judges
  • M Duraiswamy