Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

A. John Joseph Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul and Others

A. John Joseph vs The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Dec 16, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1186400

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P(MD) No. 24071 of 2016
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution

Key legal issue
Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. John Joseph

Respondent

The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to complete the proceedings within the time frame fixed by this court and subsequently to direct the second respondent to cancel the patta in the name of the respondents 4 to 6 and issue patta in the name of the petitioner, petitioner's mother and sisters relating to the properties in s.nos.87/1e, 95/3c, 95/3f,95/3g, 85/9, patta no.483, thamaraipatti village, dindigul district.) 1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. mr.a.muthukaruppan, learned additional government pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. by consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. it is seen from the typed-set of papers that the appeal itself was filed only on 4.11.2016. therefore, it is seen that without even waiting for a reasonable time for the second respondent to act on the appeal, the petitioner has rushed to this court hurriedly and filed the present writ petition. 5. therefore, i consider this attempt of the petitioner as highly pre-matured. in any event, as it is the second respondent who has to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing both parties, i only direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest possible time, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to complete the proceedings within the time frame fixed by this Court and subsequently to direct the second respondent to cancel the patta in the name of the respondents 4 to 6 and issue patta in the name of the petitioner, Petitioner's mother and sisters relating to the properties in S.Nos.87/1E, 95/3C, 95/3F,95/3G, 85/9, Patta No.483, Thamaraipatti Village, Dindigul District.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner.

2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3.

3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself.

4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers that the appeal itself was filed only on 4.11.2016. Therefore, it is seen that without even waiting for a reasonable time for the second respondent to act on the appeal, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court hurriedly and filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Therefore, I consider this attempt of the Petitioner as highly pre-matured. In any event, as it is the second respondent who has to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing both parties, I only direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner at the earliest possible time, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial