D.P.Chandaramathy, v. The Tahsildhar,

W.M.P.No.6955 of 2018 in W.P.No.32387 of 2017 W.M.P.No.6955 of 2018 in W.P.No.32387 of 2017 K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

This Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking leave to the petitioner to recall the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32387 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner is a third party in the above Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was filed by the second respondent herein for a Mandamus to direct the Tashildar, Avadi Taluk, to survey and fix the boundaries of the land referred to in the said Writ Petition, based on his application dated 29.08.2016.

4. This Court, disposed of the said Writ Petition without expressing any view on the claim made in the writ petition, only with a direction to the Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioner therein and pass orders after hearing the rival claimants, if any. The petitioner in this Miscellaneous Petition seems to be the rival claimant. If that be the case, it is for him to approach the respondent Tashildar and raise the rival claim, if any. Even assuming that the Tashildar has passed any order against the interest of the present writ petitioner, it is for him to work out his remedy before the K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.M.P.No.6955 of 2018 in W.P.No.32387 of 2017 vsi appropriate forum. Without doing so, the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court and seeking permission to recall the order already passed, which in my considered view is not passed affecting the interest of any parties. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Petition is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed by granting liberty to the petitioner to work order his remedy before the appropriate forum.

25.11.2019 vsi W.M.P.No.6955 of 2018 in W.P.No.32387 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in