1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.1103 of 2011 R.M.Sundariammal Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai South, Madurai. 2.Dharsana Nayan Thakkar 3.L.Venkataramani Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner bearing A.No.7883 of 2008 pending before him as expeditiously as possible. For Petitioner M/s.M.Gnanagurunathan For Respondent 1 Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader For Respondents 2&3 No appearance ORDER The petitioner who alleges that he has purchased the property in question as early as on 20.10.1966, is aggrieved that the respondents 2 and 3 who are claiming that the said property belongs to them and they have obtained patta in their name, are interfering with his possession. In fact, on coming to know that the patta has been changed in the name of the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in A.No.7883 of 2008 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai South, Madurai, who is the appellate authority, as early as in the year 2008. But, the same has not been ordered and kept pending. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal which is pending from 2008 onwards. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader would only contend that since there are five third-party respondents in the appeal, it has not been decided so far and even in the present writ petition, though the petitioner has included the purchasers, notice could not be served on them for want of correct address; however, in any view of the matter, the appeal will be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law after giving notice to all the parties. 3. Though notices were taken through Court as well as privately to the parties concerned in the address given in the sale deed under which the respondents 2 and 3 are claiming title, the same were returned as "no such addressees". Anyway, the petitioner has now come forward with a limited prayer that his appeal, which is pending in which all the parties were arrayed as respondents, may be disposed of at an early date, after giving https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 notice to all the parties concerned. 4. Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner and also the fact that the appeal, which has been duly filed by the petitioner even in the year 2008, is pending with the first respondent, insofar as it relates to cancellation of the name in the patta, suffice to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal, after giving due notice to all the parties concerned especially, the respondents in the writ petition and in the appeal and after giving sufficient opportunity to both parties to prove their case, in accordance with law and on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai South, Madurai. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.14431 srm Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1103 of 2011 19.04.2011 TR : 06.05.2011 : 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/