R.Srirama, v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.12.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.31846 of 2017 R.Srirama

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri.

4.Suvarna

...Respondents

Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in connection with the summons in Na.Ka.6932/2017/J1 dated 24.11.2017 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry by furnishing the documents requested by the petitioner.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Thiruvengadam For Respondents :

Mr.R.Govindasamy for R1 to R3 Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2.This writ petition is filed questioning the summon/notice issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 30.11.2017, arising out of patta proceedings in respect of the property over which the petitioner and the fourth respondent are having some title dispute.

3. As the impugned proceedings is only a notice issued to the petitioner to appear for enquiry, I do not think that the petitioner can maintain this writ petition challenging such notice, since the said notice was issued by the jurisdictional officer viz., the second respondent. However, the grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that for making the effective representation/objection before the second respondent, the petitioner need some documents from the fourth respondent and therefore, the fourth respondent has to furnish the same.

4. Needless to say that all these contentions can be raised before the second respondent at the time of enquiry and therefore, at this stage, the

petitioner cannot seek such relief from this Court, that too, by challenging the notice of hearing. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to appear and raise all his contentions before the second respondent. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.12.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index : Yes / No vri To 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri.

K.RAVICHADNRABAABU,J.

vri W.P.No.31846 of 2017 12.12.2017