Lakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer,

ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.

2.The petitioner had filed revision before the first respondent. There was delay of 506 days. The petitioner wants this Court to condone the delay. This jurisdiction has to be exercised only by the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the third respondent and pass final order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks after service of notice on the third respondent. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter.

3.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

06.10.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:-

1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias

06.10.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.10.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Lakshni ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 3.Kalyani ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to dispose the revision petition in Na.Ka.No.3194/2018/D5 by condoning the delay of 506 days in filing the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2.