← Library
Madras High CourtWP/5881/2017disposed of

R.Loganathan v. The Revenue Divisional

2017-03-10Honourable Mr Justice M. Sathyanarayanan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 10.03.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN WP.No.5881/2017 R.Loganathan ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ranipet, Vellore District.

2.The Tahsildar Arakkonam, Vellore District.

3.M.D.Kalayanasundaram ..

Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2016 on the basis of the direction issued by the 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.A3/6511/2016 dated 30.12.2016.

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Jermiah For R1 & R2 :

Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, GA

ORDER

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

The petitioner claims to be the former Vice President of Mosur Village during the period between 2006-2011 and his tenure of office got expired during the year 2011. According to the petitioner, in Mosur Village Panchayat, there are Government Poramboke lands admeasuring to an extent of 6.15.5 Hectares in S.No.500/1 and in the said lands, there are very many old trees and the said trees belong to the Government. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without any authorisation or permission, started cutting the trees and removed it for his own benefits and in this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 26.12.2016 to the 1st respondent, who in turn, vide communication dated 30.12.2016, in Na.Ka.No.m3/6511/2016 to the 2nd respondent, has directed the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action and to send a report to him and in spite of the same, no action has been taken whatsoever and therefore, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition.

Heard Mr.G.Jermiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the 2nd respondent to act on the communication of the 1st respondent dated 30.12.2016 in Na.Ka.No.m3/6511/2016, and after putting the 3rd respondent on notice, shall take action in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

10.03.2017 Index :

No Internet :

Yes AP To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ranipet, Vellore District.

2.The Tahsildar Arakkonam, Vellore District.

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AP WP.No.5881/2017 10.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in