P BILLAATHAL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER MADURAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is stated that the petitioner had filed a petition before the second respondent, to cancel the Patta granted in favour of the respondents 3 and 4, stating that the property in question belongs to the petitioner. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein, had rejected the request of the petitioner stating that there is a discrepancy in the boundaries of the property in question. Challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 03.03.2008, rejecting the request of the petitioner, the petitioner had preferred a Review Petition before the first respondent. The first respondent, by his impugned order, dated 02.11.2010, had dismissed the Review Petition filed by the petitioner. Challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 02.11.2010, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) AT this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to agitate the matter, to establish her claims before the appropriate civil forum, in the manner known to law, with a direction that the civil forum concerned should decide the issue arising for its consideration, without being influenced by the observations made by the first and the second respondents in their orders, dated 02.11.2010 and 03.03.2008, respectively.