Madras High CourtWP(MD)/12285/2011disposed of

R. Ravisankar, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

2017-09-18Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.09.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.(MD)No.12285 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Ravisankar

...Petitioner

-Vs1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Superintending of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

4.Isabella Ezhil Rani

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's petition dated 04.01.2010 and 06.06.2011 with in a time frame and directing the third respondent and his subordinates not to harass this petitioner to execute the registered sale deed with respect to the plots made by this petitioner and lay out in S.No.959, 964 and 965 Perampattur Revenue Village, in Sankarankovil Taluk in Tirunelveli District.

For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.C.Selvaraj Special Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.P.Samuvel Gunasingh

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 04.01.2010 and further direction to the third respondent not to harass the petitioner.

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

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a real estate promoter and as a power agent, he gave a representation before the first respondent against the order of patta transfer by the second respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner also seeks direction against the police for harassing the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that based on the complaints given by the fourth respondent and other general public, criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and now he is still absconding.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no instructions from the petitioner.

5. In view of the above facts, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Superintending of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

+One cc to Mr.F.X.Eugene, Advocate, SR.No.79698 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.79753 sm RL/6C/2P/MR/KKR/SAR4/6/10/2017 W.P.(MD)No.12285 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18.09.2017