1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.04.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.(MD).No.4375 of 2011 1. Thangammal 2. Rathina Moorthy : Petitioners -Vs- 1. The District Revenue Officer Dindigul District,Dindigul 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Palani, Dindigul District 3. The Tahsildar Palani Taluk Dindigul District 4. Subramanian 5. Selvaraj : Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition No. 10 of 2010 dated Nil within stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition No. 10 of 2010 dated Nil. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the owners of the property bearing S.No. 378, Kottathurai Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, to an extent of 12.03 acres and they acquired the property through partition deed, dated 18.10.2000. He would further submit that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without any hindrance. He would also submit that on 18.09.2002, the other sharers sold out their share to the respondents 4 and 5 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 from the date of sale onwards, the respondents 4 and 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the property. He would also submit that in order to develop their agriculture, they excavated a well and the respondents 4 and 5 are attempted to get electricity service connection to the well in their name and in that regard, they made an application before the third respondent seeking for sub-division of their land. He would further submit that without issuing any notice, the third respondent sub-divided the land. Hence, the petitioners made a representation to the third respondent under the Right to Information Act, praying to cancel the Sub-division, but no action has been taken. 4. He would also submit that after scrutinizing the documents and after full fledged enquiry, the second respondent cancelled the sub-division by his proceedings dated 21.04.2009. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents 3 and 4 have filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, in Revision Petition No. 10 of 2010 and the same is pending for consideration. Therefore, he would request the Court that a direction may be issued to the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition. 5. Considering the limited scope of prayer sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the revision Petition in R.P.No. 10 of 2010 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Revenue Officer Dindigul District, Dindigul 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Palani, Dindigul District 3. The Tahsildar Palani Taluk,Dindigul District +1cc to Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.13685 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 13735 W.P.(MD).No.4375 of 2011 12.04.2011 vsg/SMA/19.4.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/