Bommi v. The District Revenue Officer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Tuesday, the Twentieth day of August Two Thousand and Nineteen PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.SURESH KUMAR WMP(MD). No.19555 of 2017 IN WP(MD)No. 3663 of 2009 1.Bommi 2.Andisamy Naicker ... Petitioners/petitioners Vs 1 The District Revenue Officer, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai Collectorate, Madurai.

3 The Tahsildar, Usilampatty Circle, Madurai District.

4 Mokkasamy ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer :- Praying to condone the delay of 1424 days in filing the restoration petition before this Hon'ble Court in WP(MD)No.3663 of 2009 dated 20.12.2013.

Prayer in WP(MD). 3663/ 2009 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court t o issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing the Respondents to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in his reference No.19195, dated 23.04.2007 and quash the same and further direct the 3rd Respondent by including the names of the Petitioners in patta in survey No.7/2 and 192/3 in Jodhilnaikanoor Village.

ORDER:- This Miscellaneous Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru. Mr.A.K.Manickam, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Thiru. Mr.M.Rajarajan,Govt Advocate For R1 to R3, and of Mr.D.Malaichamy For R4, and , this Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the earlier counsel, who appeared for the writ petitioner,

expired. Due to that unfortunate event, the petitioner could not have contacted the learned counsel and thereafter, he was not in a position to oversee the progress of the writ petition. That is the reason why, there has been a huge delay of 1424 days in filing of this restoration petition. Hence, the delay occurred accordingly.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.D.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Both the learned counsel submitted that, they have no objection in allowing this condone delay petition.

3.In view of the above, this condone delay petition is ordered and the delay is condoned.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai Collectorate, Madurai.

3. The Tahsildar, Usilampatty Circle, Madurai District.

ORDER DATED : 20/08/2019 ==========================

ORDER

========================== WMP(MD). No.19555 of 2017 in WP (MD)No.3663 of 2009 Giving direction and etc.

as stated within.

CS(18.09.2019) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/