Skip to content


Kaliappan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. (MD) No. 7689 of 2010
Judge
AppellantKaliappan
RespondentThe Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul and Others
Excerpt:
.....of the charitable object for which the said lands were endowed. 2. heard mr.g.r.swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the mr.aairam k.selvakumar learned government advocate appearing for the first respondent and mr.m.gnanagurunathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 3. after some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this court. 4. the learned government advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law. 5. in view of the above, without.....
Judgment:

(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to formally resume possession of Survey No.310/1 and 310/2 measuring extent of 6 acres and 75 cents and covered under patta No.801 in Koovanuthur Village and frame a proper scheme for the enforcement of the charitable object for which the said lands were endowed.

Order:

1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,directing the first respondent to formally resume possession of Survey No.310/1 and 310/2 measuring extent of 6 acres and 75 cents and covered under patta No.801 in Koovanuthur Village and frame a proper scheme for the enforcement of the charitable object for which the said lands were endowed.

2. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Mr.Aairam K.Selvakumar learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

3. After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation sent by the petitioner, dated 27.04.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //