(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J) Heard Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel for the appellant , Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.
2.With consent of all the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing.
3.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.(MD) NO.3877 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013. The first respondent is the writ petitioner and sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, to cancel the No Objection Certificate issued to the appellant to set up firework industry by considering his representation. The Court, after hearing the appellant as well as the official respondent viz., the District Revenue Officer, disposed of the writ petition by passing an innocuous order. The operating portion of the order reads as follows:
?9.The parties are given liberty to plead their case before the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, with regard to their respective right in the property in SurveyNo.506/5, Keelathiruthangal Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The District Revenue Officer is directed to consider the case pleaded by the parties, in the light of the documents and revenue records and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.?
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Revenue Officer would have no jurisdiction to consider as to whether the claim made by the respondent/writ petitioner is justifiable or not and this legal issue should have been considered by the writ Court. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the observations made by the Court in para 8 of the order. In para 8 of the order, the Court has recorded the submissions of the writ petitioner and pointed out that it is for the District Revenue Officer to consider the case pleaded by the writ petitioner and the appellant/second respondent as to whether the appellant is having any right over the property in question. Thus, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant on account of the said direction, when it appears to be an admitted fact that in respect of a portion of the land, the patta which was granted to the appellant was cancelled. However, we are not inclined to make any observation in this regard and we left it open to the District Revenue Officer to consider the case as pleaded by the parties in the light of the documents and revenue records and take a decision in the matter as directed by the writ Court. Such decision will be taken by the second respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.With the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar..