VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

A.Senthilkumar, v. The District Revenue Officer,

DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
27 March 2023
Bench
P.T. Ashaauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 21879/2018

Judgment

ORDER This writ petition is listed today under the caption 'for dismissal'.

¶2When the matter was taken up for hearing on 09.03.2023, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.03.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To

1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer,

2.The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

4.The Joint Commissioner, Trichy.

P.T.ASHA, J. abr Dated: 27.03.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.03.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P.(MD) No.19816 of 2018 A.Senthilkumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, 2.The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 4.The Joint Commissioner, Trichy. 5.The Executive Officer, [Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Temple, Viralimalai], Temples of Pudukkottai, .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 05.10.2018 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.D3/5865/2016 issued by the first respondent so far as the petitioner's property situated in Pudukkottai District, Viralimalai Village in S.F.Nos.148/2, 173/1 and 173/6 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian For RR1 to 4 : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate For R5 : Mr.G.Mathavan

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.