A.Lakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.732 of 2014 1.A.Lakshmi 2.Natarajan
...Petitioners
Vs
1. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District
3. The Tahsildar, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2013 and dispose of the review petition on the file of the 1st respondent within the time stipulated by this court. (Prayer amended as per order dated 11.02.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.732 o f2014) For Petitioners :
Mr.M.Rajendiran For Respondents :
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.Rajendiran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2.The petitioners in this Writ Petition seek for a direction upon the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of their representation dated 28.10.2013 wherein the petitioners have requested the 1st respondent to hear and dispose of the Review Petition filed by one G.Veerasamy, son of Gopal.
3. It is seen that the Revenue Authority entertained the Review Petition filed by Veerasamy and issued notice for enquiry dated 26.09.2012 and fixed an enquiry on 29.11.2012. The petitioners would state that they are the respondents in the said Review Petition and though they appeared on the said date, subsequently, no further action has been taken by the 1st respondent and the matter is pending.
4.Since the petitioners have not impleaded Veerasamy or other persons, who are also parties to the Review Petition, namely, Balaji, Gopalakrishnan, Narayanan and Muniyan as respondents in this Writ Petition, it cannot be verified as to whether the Review Petitioner was heard and whether the Review Petitioners have been afforded opportunity and other matters. However, since the statutory review is pending before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is expected to dispose of the same within a reasonable time after hearing all the parties. 5.In the light of the above, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the Review Petition filed by Veerasamy and others after issuing fresh notice to all the parties, whose names have been mentioned in the notice dated 26.09.2012 and conduct enquiry in the matter after affording opportunity of personal hearing and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ssd
To
1. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District
3. The Tahsildar, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District 1 cc to Mr.M.Rajendiran, Advocat, Sr. 9715 1 cc to Government Pleader, sr. 9974 W.P.No.732 of 2014 TS (CO) kk 5/3