S.MURALIDHARAN Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails an order dtd. 28/3/2025 of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting the request of the petitioner's father for patta transfer.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the operative paragraph of the impugned order and pointed out that it is recorded therein that the petitioner's father had requested for patta transfer in respect of Survey Nos.564/3, 564/4 and 564/5. After pointing out that such request was rejected on the ground that O.S.No.60 of 2022 is pending, he referred to the plant in the said suit and pointed out that the schedule pertains to Survey No.564/1. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the impugned order was issued on non-application of mind.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader appears on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. At the hearing on 8/10/2025, after noticing that notice was served on the fifth respondent, the Registry was directed to print the name of the fifth respondent in the cause list. In spite of service of notice and the name being printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the fifth respondent.