Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 388 (MAD)

S. Ganesa Ramasubramanian v. District Collector, Tirunelveli District

2013-01-17

M.JAICHANDREN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner has to make a representation, relating to the relief prayed for in the present Writ Petition, to the Special Commissioner (Land Reforms), Chennai. He had further submitted that the respondents did not have any power or authority to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 2. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is directed to make a representation, relating to the relief prayed for by him in the present Writ Petition, before the Special Commissioner (Land Reforms), Chennai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the Special Commissioner (Land Reforms), Chennai, is expected to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, thereon, as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Petition is ordered, accordingly. No costs.