Rathina Raja Pandi v. Special Commr For Land Adminis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 04.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.No.36627 of 2003 Rathina Raja Pandi S/o.Shanmuga Nadar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi.

3.R.Ramalingam S/o.Ramasamy Pillai 4.Jayabharathi 5.Ramajayam 6.Ponmadasamy Nadar S/o.Shanmuga Nadar 7.Thangasamy Nadar S/o.Shanmuga Nadar 8.The Tahsildhar Thoothukudi Taluk 9.The Head Surveyor, Thoothukudi Taluk ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to Revision petition in ref.Ni.Mu.Si.Ma.No.34/2002 (K4/45840/2001) on the file of the first respondent and to quash the order dated 26.03.2003.

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Ms.Mathumathi Special Government Pleader for R1, R2, R4, R5, R8 and R9 RR6 and 7 No appearance R3 Notice Returned

ORDER

When the matter is called today, there is no representation for the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1,2,4,5,8 and 9, on instructions, states that the writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent remanding the matter to the DRO, Thoothukudi, with specific directions.

3.It is stated that the second respondent, namely, the District Revenue Officer pursuant to the order of remand passed final order on 12.07.2004. It is also represented by the counsel for the respondents that challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.07.2004, the same petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.278 of 2004 and the same was also dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. It is also represented that as against the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.07.2004, the petitioner has filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed. 4.In view of the facts stated before this Court, this Court is of the view that the writ petition has become infructuous. 5.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to agitate the issue before the competent Civil Court with regard to his right and title. No Costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tta

Copy to 1.Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi.

3.The Tahsildhar, Thoothukudi Taluk.

4.The Head Surveyor, Thoothukudi Taluk.

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.517.

W.P.No.36627 of 2003 SR II (CO) NRA(23/02/2021)