P.Pathiah Moopar v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.12.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD) No.19117 of 2014 P.Pathiah Moopar ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Collector, Madurai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3.The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

4.Peria Mookan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the Revision petition in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.13142/2014/G2 dated 13.3.2014 preferred by the 4th respondent within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : M/s.Jessi Jeeva Priya For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Government Advocate.

For R4 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition in Na.Ka.No.13142/2014/G2, dated 13.3.2014 preferred by the fourth respondent within the time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

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

3.According to the petitioner, joint patta was granted in the name of the petitioner and others in respect of the property situated in Survey No.408, Pothampatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District and the same was subsequently cancelled by the second respondent without any enquiry. Challenging the same, several proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner and finally, the third respondent, by the proceedings dated 27.12.2011, restored the patta in the name of the temple in question. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent has filed WP(MD)No.988 of 2012 to forbear the second respondent therein from cancelling the patta issued in the name of the temple in question and as per the direction of this Court in WP (MD)No.988 of 2012, the fourth respondent preferred a revision before the first respondent.

Since the same is pending till date, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has appeared in the said proceedings and also filed written objections and after elaborate arguments, the matter was reserved for pronouncing orders in the month of September, 2017. However, no orders has been passed till date in the revision preferred by the fourth respondent. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate direction to the first respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the fourth respondent.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the revision was reserved in the month of September, 2017 itself, the first respondent is directed to pronounce orders in respect of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.13142/2014/G2, dated 13.03.2014, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3.The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.91547 mj RL/5C/2P/SKN/RSK/SAR1/25/1/2018 W.P(MD)No.19117 of 2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 06.12.2017