Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1632 (MAD)

K. Komalavalli v. The Special Deputy Collector Kallar Reclamation Madurai

2008-06-10

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment : By consent of the learned counsels on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 13. 1987, is directed to be disposed of by the second respondent, within a specified period. 4. The learned Government Advocate has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 13. 1987, in the light of the recommendation made by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, dated 26. 1992 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been disposed of till date. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 13. 1987, to the second respondent, along with a copy of this order. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.