Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 511 (MAD)

Palanichamy v. District Revenue Officer

2016-02-10

B.RAJENDRAN

body2016
ORDER : The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuance to his notice dated 13.08.2015. 2. Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the violation of patta condition, he has been asked to appear before the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the District Revenue Officer is only the competent authority to go into the issue in question. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 was put on notice. 6. Taking into consideration that the enquiry is already pending before the District Revenue Officer, the said District Revenue Officer is directed to enquire into all the details, after giving notice to the interested parties and pass appropriate 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. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.