K.Karuppasamy, v. The Commissioner Of Land

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.6677 2019 K.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 23.01.2019 in the light of the recommendation of the third respondent dated 20.05.2010 in Na.Ka.No.7896/09/A2 and the recommendation of the fourth respondent dated 16.03.2010 in Na.Ka.No.8372/09/A2 respectively, within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for Mr.M.O.Thevan Kumar For Respondents :Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The petitioner's father had purchased the petition mentioned property. The authority chose to nullify the said transactions. The challenge by the petitioner's father was in vain. W.P.(MD)No.2641 of 1988 filed by the petitioner's father was dismissed on 30.01.1997. However, the petitioner's father was given liberty to move the authorities for assignment on payment of double the market value, subject to eligibility. The petitioner's father thereupon moved the authorities. Since there was no response, he filed W.P. (MD)No.11778 of 2009. The same was dismissed with a direction.

Pursuant to the said direction given on 17.11.2009, the Tahsildar had given a recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.03.2010.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, also recommended the case of the petitioner's father vide communication dated 20.05.2010 addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul. Thereafter, there has been no progress. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 3.The second respondent is directed to forward the appropriate proposals to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall take a decision in the matter on the petition mentioned representation dated 23.01.2019 within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

4.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.

+1 CC to M/s.M.O.THEVAN KUMAR, Advocate SR-64210. +1 CC to SPL GP SR-64714.

W.P.(MD)No.6677 2019 29.04.2019 CS: (12/06/2019) 3P 7C