Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
Jayamani – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue officer Erode District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to administrative order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. safeguards rights in property matters (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. directions issued for notice and hearing (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final outcomes and timelines (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
Order
This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the first respondent.
2.The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that she was not heard by the Revenue Divisional Officer and hence, the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the first respondent (The District Revenue officer)
has got to be quashed.
3.However, as seen from the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner's interest has been adequately protected. The first respondent has directed the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh subdivision of the property, based on the supporting documents produced by the petitioner as well as the private respondents. The petitioner has also been afforded an opportunity to raise all objections before the Tahsildar for fresh subdivision.
4.This Court is not interfering with the impugned order.
5.Even though the Revenue Divisional Officer may not have afforded an opportunity of hea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
