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

V.K.S.A.Akbar Ali vs The District Revenue Officer

Madras High Court|08 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 13.01.2016 in Na.Ka.Aa.6/29610/14 and to direct the respondent to make necessary correction in respect of the classification of land situated at old survey No.55, Panjapur village, Srirangam taluk.
2.Heard both side. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the property in old survey No.55, situated at Panjapur village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District was purchased by the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 03.06.1991 and from then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners on coming to know that the said property was classified as Government Punja Tharisu (wetland), on 05.01.2012, made a representation to rectify the same. Since no action was taken, W.P(MD).Nos.4244 of 2012 and 13962 of 2014 came to be filed. Though the rejection order was set aside and remanded to the authorities, once again by order dated 13.01.2016 in Na.Ka.No.B6/29610/2014, the request of the petitioners was rejected. challenging the same petitioners are before this Court.
4.It is the specific case of the petitioners that in respect of their title as well as other issues the petitioners produced all the relevant documents as observed in the impugned order, but contrary to that in the concluding paragraph the authority stated that the petitioners did not produce any of the documents.
5.I have perused the pleading as well as the documents filed along with the writ petition. In the impugned order dated 13.01.2016, in the concluding paragraph the authority has stated as follows:-
?nkYk; kDjhuh;fs; jhth epyk; mtUf;nfh my;yJ kDjhuUf;nfh tpw;gid bra;jtUf;nfh vt;tifapy; brhe;jkhdJ vd;gJ Fwpj;J ahbjhU bry;yjf;f Mtz Mjhu';fnsh jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/?
On the other hand in the previous paragraph, it is stated as follows:- ? jpU/ V.K.S.A. mf;gh; myp kw;Wk; ,UthplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;l thf;FK:yk;. mth;fs; jug;gpy; mspf;fg;gl;l Mtz';fs;. fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh;. efu rhh;?Ma;thsh; MfpnahuJ thf;FK:y';fs;. ,t;tYtyf Kd;nfhg;g[ epK/M/5-17120-2012. bjhlh;g[ila Mtz';fs; kw;Wk; tUtha; Mtz';fs; Mfpait ed;F ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;lJ/? from the above , it is apparent that the respondent did not apply his mind properly for consideration of the documents.
6.Under such circumstances, this Court finds no other way except to set aside the impugned order for non consideration of the required documents. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2016 passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration of the documents and for passing appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the to the petitioner as well as to all other interested parties, if any within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To The District Revenue Officer, D.R.O.Office, District Collector Office Campus, Trichy ? 1, Trichy District.
.
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

V.K.S.A.Akbar Ali vs The District Revenue Officer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
08 November, 2017