Peramaiyan, v. N.O.Sukhaputhra

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN in W.P(MD)No.14337 of 2019 Peramaiyan : Petitioner/Petitioner .vs.

N.O.Sukhaputhra, The District Revenue Officer, O/o. the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

: Contemnor/Respondent No.2 PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying this Court to punish the Contemnor/respondent for contempt for willfully disobeying the order of this Court in to the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.14337 of 2019, dated 26.06.2019.

Prayer in WP(MD). 14337/ 2019 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to rectify the wrong entries made in the revenue records during UDR Survey in respect of S.No.263/29 measuring 0.02.0, Ambedkar Street, Vadaseri North, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District and restore the patta in the name of writ petitioner For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabha For Respondent : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

W.P(MD)No.14337 of 2019, had been filed, seeking a direction against the second and third respondents therein, namely, the District Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, to rectify the wrong entries made in the revenue records during UDR survey with respect to the lands in S.No.263/29, measuring 0.20.0 ares in Ambedkar Street, Vadaseri North, Orthanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.

1/3

2.A direction was passed by a learned Single Judge on 26.06.2019, directing the second respondent/District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, to consider the petitioner's representation and to comply with the same. The second respondent had passed an order, but, had found that he is not the competent authority and that the third respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, is the competent authority.

3.Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appears on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the Writ Petitioner should have fixed the correct authority, who can address the issues raised in the Writ Petition and the petitioner having not done so, but, had placed the burden on both the second and third respondents.

4.The learned Single Judge had placed the responsibility on the second respondent. Now, finding that he is not the competent authority, the second respondent had forwarded the entire records to the third respondent for compliance.

5.It is stated that the third respondent would conduct enquiry and pass necessary orders. He is not the contemnor before the Court. There is no direction against him/her. 6.But, as a public servant, it is expected that he would do the needful and conduct enquiry as early as possible. The petitioner may participate in the enquiry, which will be conducted by the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, 7.With the above observation, this Contempt Petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) lr Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

2/3

To The District Revenue Officer, O/o. the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

Copy to The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-1016[F] dated 10/01/2022 ) 07.01.2022 NSN(CO) KB(25.01.2022) 3P 4C 3/3