D.Thulasi v. The District Revenue Officer,

W.P.No.31513 of 2014 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

This petition is posted today under the caption "for being mentioned".

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to typographical error, in the order dated 19.01.2015 in this writ petition, a direction was issued to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, instead of giving direction to the first respondent, as per the prayer.

4. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to replace - (i) the words "the 2nd respondent to pass order ..." in the first sentence in paragraph 2 with the words "the first respondent to pass order ...."

(ii) The last sentence starting with "since the matter... with the following sentence :

"Since the matter is already seized of by the second respondent, there will be a direction to the first respondent to pass orders, based on the second respondent's order dated 18.09.2013 and 26.08.2014, after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as to the respondents 5 to 8 on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

09.02.2015 gg Note : Issue corrected order copy on 10.02.2015