Smt.M.Selvi, v. The District Revenue Officer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P(MD)Nos.14399 & 14400 of 2017 M.Selvi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar, South Taluk, Madurai District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer, Veeraganoor Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.
5.Subbash Bose (Died) 6.Vasantha Kumari 1/5
7.Kamatchi Mahesh Bose 8.Iniyaraj Meenatchi 9.Vinodh Venkatesh Bose ... Respondents (R6 - R9 are impleaded vide Court order, dated 03.03.2025 in W.M.P(MD)No.26260/2024) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceeding Ne.Mu.No. 57137/2014/G2, dated 06.02.2017 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Santhanam For R1 - R4 : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya Government Advocate For R5 : Died For R6,8 & 9 : No Appearance
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the order of the 1st respondent in Ne.Mu.No. 57137/2014/G2, dated 06.02.2017.
2/5
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for the 5th respondent. Though the counsel undertook to file vakalat for the 7th respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the 7th respondent or the other private respondents. I have carefully considered the materials available on record.
3. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that after sale of 33 cents in favour of private respondents, the petitioner retained an extent of 58 cents. The learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the written arguments filed on behalf of the revision petitioner before the 1st respondent, who is the 5th respondent herein, who is now represented by his legal heirs pursuant to his demise pending writ petition. The 5th respondent, in no uncertain terms, even in the written arguments, has stated that what was sold by Muthukaruppan was only 33 cents and the balance land retained was 57.6 / 58 cents. Without considering the said admission of the private respondent, the 1st respondent has proceeded to reject the petitioner's application.
4. In view of the above, the matter has to be necessarily be heard after affording an opportunity to the parties. In view of the above, this Writ Petition 3/5
is allowed and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondents 6 to 9 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 01.04.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gbg To:
1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar, South Taluk, Madurai District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer, Veeraganoor Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.
4/5
P.B.BALAJI , J.
gbg 01.04.2025 5/5