Madras High CourtWP(MD)/10269/2014dismissed

M.Soundarapandian, v. The District Revenue Officer,

2018-02-28Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.(MD)No.10269 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 M.Soundarapandian ... Petitioner -Vs1.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

4.T.Kasirajan 5.K.Kamalaveni 6.Rangan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.A1/4023/2011 dated 13.09.2013 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For R1 to R3 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader.

For R4 and R5 : Mr.A.Sivaji For R6 : No Appearance

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 13.09.2013. 2.Against the order passed by the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, a revision is provided before the first respondent / District Revenue Officer. The petitioner without availing alternative remedy filed the present writ petition before this Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4.On perusal of the records, it is seen that a notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has also raised his objections before the second respondent on 24.07.2013 and the second respondent after considering the same and the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sivakasi, has passed the impugned order, sub-dividing the land and granted patta in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. If the petitioner has any grievance against the order, the petitioner has to file a revision before the appropriate authority and without availing alternative remedy, he cannot maintain this writ petition, 5.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a revision before the appropriate authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

Copy to:

The Section Officer, ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 COPIES) +1cc to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate, SR.No.52116 +1cc to Mr.A.SIVAJI, Advocate, SR.No.52263 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No.52316 W.P(MD)No.10269 of 2014 28.02.2018 MYR KK/CVC/14.03.2018/SAR-4/2P-9C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/