C.Chinnappa v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

ORDER Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.

2.The petitioner challenges the impugned enquiry notice dated

13.09.2023. The third respondent has filed an appeal before the first respondent questioning the sub-division made in the petition mentioned survey number. The first respondent had issued notice to the petitioner. Issuance of notice by itself cannot and does not infringe the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner can always place all his objections before the first respondent. If the final order to be passed by the first respondent is adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner can always come before this Court. I do not want to interfere at this stage.

3.Leaving open all the defences of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:-

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District.

2.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias

27.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.24076 of 2023 C.Chinnappa ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 3.K.Chinnaponnu ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.5379/A2/2023 dated 13.09.2023 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and in consequence thereof restore the patta in favor of the petitioner and all the legal heirs of Thangavel. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate for R1 & R2.