IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:6-5-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. RAJA SURIA WRIT PETITION NO:11922 OF 2008 AND M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 K. Santhabai ... Petitioner vs 1. The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Vridhachalam Cuddalore District 3. The Tahsildar, Thittakudi Taluk Cuddalore District 4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore 5. The Assistant Engineer Public Works Department Irrigation Section Veppurm Cuddalore District .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for the relief as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.V. Bharathidasan For respondents: Ms.D. Geetha, AGP ORDER The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the third respondent in and by its proceedings in O.Mu./A2/1672/2008, dated 9.4.2008 and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to assign the land in Survey No.241/1, Sirupakkam village, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District in favour of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard both sides. The case of the petitioner, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a nutshell would be to the effect that already this Court vide Order dated 22.2.2008 in W.P.No.4723 of 2008 passed the following direction: "4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief sought in this writ petition cannot be granted in entirety. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a consistent plea that the petitioner's application dated 26.6.2007 may be directed to be disposed of. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the case, suffice it to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 26.6.2007 in accordance with law and on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order". 3. In the above order, a specific direction is given that the Collector has to consider the representation of the petitioner, but the Tahsildar has simply considered and rejected the claim of this petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has focused the above writ petition. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to support the order of Tahsildar. The above facts would prima-facie highlight the fact that the Tahsildar was not ordered to dispose of the representation as per the earlier order of my predecessor. 5. I, therefore, would like to direct the Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.3.2008 and pass orders on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar/ Vacation Officer. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Vridhachalam Cuddalore District 3. The Tahsildar, Thittakudi Taluk Cuddalore District 4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore 5. The Assistant Engineer Public Works Department Irrigation Section Veppurm Cuddalore District + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 26575 + 1 CC To Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate SR NO.76556 W.P.NO.11922/2008 kj[cp] gp/9.5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/