Madras High CourtWP/8991/2015disposed of

T.Goopaliappa, v. The District Collector,

2015-03-30Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 30.03.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WP.No.8991/2015 T.Goopaliappa .. Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.

2.The Tashildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri.

Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the proceedings before 2nd respondent Na.Ka.1832/2012[C4] dated 04.01.2013 within a time frame.

For Petitioner :

Ms.R.Poornima For Respondents :

Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP

ORDER

Heard Ms.R.Poornima, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the proceedings before 2nd respondent Na.Ka.1832/2012[C4] dated 04.01.2013 within a time frame.

3.The petitioner submitted an application for cancellation of patta granted in favour of one V.R.Srinivasan, S/o. [Late] Rajanna Chetty. Based on the said application, the 2nd respondent issued a notice on 30.07.2012 fixing an enquiry on 04.08.2012. Notice was sent to the petitioner and to V.R.Srinivasan. Subsequently, the enquiry was adjourned to 24.06.2013 and a fresh notice was issued on 16.06.2013. Once again, the enquiry was adjourned to 20.01.2014 and notices were issued to the petitioner and to V.R.Srinivasan. Thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned to 12.03.2014 and notice was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

issued on the same day, i.e., 12.03.2014, to the parties concerned. The petitioner would state that V.R.Srinivasan, is not appearing for the enquiry and he is not cooperating for the disposal of the petition and therefore, the enquiry is being adjourned from time to time.

3.Though such an allegation is made, the correctness of the same cannot be verified since the petitioner has failed to implead V.R.Srinivasan as respondent in this writ petition. In any event, it is seen that the 2nd respondent has already seized of the matter and the enquiry is in progress.

4.Hence, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to give ultimatum in the matter by fixing a new date for conducting the enquiry and issue fresh notice to the petitioner as well as to V.R.Srinivasan and proceed in accordance with law by passing a final order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.

2.The Tashildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri.

1 cc to Mr.R.Poornima ,Advocate, SR.No.17673 1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No17926 WP.No.8991/2015 sk(co) pmk.11.4.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/