Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2552 (MAD)

G. Ramasamy v. Sivakumar

2012-06-20

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, it has been submitted that the respondent had already retired from service, and therefore Mr. M.Ravi, the present Tahsildar, had appeared before this Court, along with the relevant records. The respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner, dated 15.04.2010, stating that a separate patta cannot be issued in the name of the petitioner, in respect of S.F.No.345/2A, Kadampadi Village, Sulur, Coimbatore District, as the land in question is in the name of the Indian Air Force, as per the relevant revenue records. It is also noted, from the records produced by the respondent, that there are certain Writ Petitions pending before this Court, in W.P. Nos 17417 and 17418 of 2000, relating to the same issue. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order, dated 25.10.2000, made in W.P.Nos.17417 and 17418 of 2000,to show that the said Writ Petitions have been allowed and they are not pending on the file of this Court. 3. In view of the rival contentions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the petitioners are permitted to place all the relevant records before the respondent, in respect of the land in question, within a period of two weeks from today, and on the petitioner furnishing all the details, as required by the respondent, the respondent shall consider the same, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, relating to the claim of the petitioner, in respect of S.F.No.345/2A, Kadampadi Village, Sulur, Coimbatore District. However, it is made clear that if the issue arising for the decision of the respondent is pending on the file of this Court, or before any other forum, the said fact may be brought to the notice of the petitioner and in such circumstances, the respondent may not pass final orders, in respect of the claim made by the petitioner. In view of the above, this contempt petition stands closed.