R.Sivakumar v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P(MD)No.5569 of 2025 R.Sivakumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, O/o the District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o the District Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
4.The Tahsildar, O/o the Tahsildar, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.
5.Sethuramu 6.Muruganantham 1/5
7.Senthilkumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent Tashildar, Thirumayam to implement the order of the 3rd respondent in Ne.Mu.A4/7668/2023, dated 28.01.2025 to restore the petitioner's father name, namely N.Rethinam in respect of Patta No.1009 in Town SF.No.1417 with an extent 0.05.5 Ares of Arimalam Town Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering petitioner's representation, dated 30.01.2025 and 03.03.2025 within the time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi for M/s.KBS.Law Office For R1 - R4 : Mr.S.Kaneswaran Government Advocate
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to implement the order of the 3rd respondent, dated 28.01.2025.
2. The petitioner has given a representation on 30.01.2025 and 03.03.2025, seeking implementation of the order of the 3rd respondent. Since the same was not considered, this writ petition has been filed. 2/5
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would invite my attention to the averment in Paragraph No.10 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition where the petitioner himself admits the fact that the 5th respondent has preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent herein, against the order of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, he would submit that pending any such revision under the Act, it would not be possible to implement the order of the 4th respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said information regarding the revision was provided by the 4th respondent and the petitioner has not received any notice in the revision preferred by the 5th respondent. In any event, as long as there is no order of stay prohibiting the implementation of the order of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent being subordinate to the 3rd respondent is bound to implement the order.
5. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to implement the order of the 3rd respondent within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3/5
6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18.03.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gbg To:
1.The District Collector, O/o the District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o the District Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
4.The Tahsildar, O/o the Tahsildar, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.
4/5
P.B.BALAJI , J.
gbg 18.03.2025 5/5