SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
M.Gopalakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore North Circle, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore – 641 017. – Respondent
W.M.P.No.11109 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Rajmakesh
For the Respondents:Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate [R1 to R3]

Court directs time-bound disposal of remanded revenue matter without quashing, ensuring natural justice.

Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners challenged an order dated 27.09.2023 remanding a patta name deletion matter for fresh consideration. Essential facts involved prior order dated 11.10.2022 directing deletion of unauthorized names from Patta No.1740 in S.F No.569. Court found no need to quash remand but required expeditious disposal. Issue framed as whether direction for time-bound disposal post-remand suffices instead of quashing. Ratio: Non-interference with remand order avoids prejudice; mandates hearing parties and natural justice principles before final orders. Writ petition disposed directing 2nd respondent to pass final orders within three months.

Table of Content
1. challenges to remand order in patta dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners seek time-bound disposal direction. (Para 3 , 4)
3. mandate expeditious final orders with hearings. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 27.09.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, remanding the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration.

2. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 4 to 9 in this writ petition, notice to the respondents 4 to 9 is dispensed with by this Court.

3. Even though a specific ground has been raised by the petitioner that the 1st respondent by total non-application of mind to the fact that he does not have power to remand the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration has passed the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, would submit that the petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the matter pursuant to the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

4. No prejudice would be caused to any of the parties, if such a direction is issued by this Court.

5. Without interfering with the impugned order, dated 27.09.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, in the interest of all the parties, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, pursuant to the order of remand, dated 27.09.2023 passed by the

1st respondent, which is challenged in this writ petition, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the objections, if any, from the respondents 4 to 9 and any other party, whom the 2nd respondent deems it fit to enquire, and by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top