R.Seethalakhsmi v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.08.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR R.Seethalakhsmi

...Petitioner

-Vs1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office, Dindigul.

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the name of Chinnaponnu in the petitioner's patta No.1932 of S.No.699/1B2 about 40 cents in Sevugampatty Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District and consider the representation dated 16.07.2019 of the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand, G.A.

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the name of Chinnaponnu in the petitioner's patta No.1932 of S.No.699/1B2 about 40 cents in Sevugampatty Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District and consider the representation dated 16.07.2019 of the petitioner. 2.Heard Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

1/3

3.In order to remove the name of one individual viz., Chinnaponnu in patta No.1932 of S.No.699/1B2 to the extent of 40 cents in Sevugampatty Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, the petitioner had given a representation on 16.07.2019 to the respondent and the said representation if it is decided on merits within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner would be satisfied.

4.I have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, the said representation of the petitioner would be decided by the 2nd respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, after hearing both the petitioner as well as the individual viz., Chinnaponnu, who is the adjacent land owner of the petitioner and such order would be passed within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court. 5.Having regard to the said said submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition, with the consent of both the parties, at the stage of admission itself, with the following direction:

"The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.07.2019 and pass orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the individual viz., Chinnaponnu, who is the adjacent land owner of the petitioner by issuing her separate notice and pass orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-I) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Arul To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

2/3

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office, Dindigul.

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

+1 CC to Mr.S. SIVA KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-82930[F] dated 22/08/2019 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-83191[F] dated 22/08/2019 ) Order made in 21.08.2019 VB(19.12.2019) 3P 6C 3/3