H VETRI SELVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE of motion has been ordered by this court on 11-7-1989 when the writ petition came up for admission. In response thereto, Mr. V.N.Mohanraj , learned counsel appears for the third respondent and a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the third respondent.

(2.) BY consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up final disposal today.

(3.) I find from the impugned order that an application to the Government for exemption from R. 14 (2) of the Rules was filed by the 3rd respondent on 14-8-1988 even before the dismissal of the writ petition w. P. No. 13854 of 1988 by this Court on 12-12-1988. The petitioner has sent petitions to the Government on 26-8-1988, 29-8-1988, 21-9-1988, 15-12-88 and 27-3-1989. It is stated in the impugned order that the report of the Collector was against the third respondent. So also was the report of the Commissioner of land Administration. However, the petitioner herein has been asked to file any further objection petition and accordingly she filed another objection petition on 27-3-1989. In that petition she has stated that in view of the judgment of this court in W. P. No. 13854 of 1988, the third respondent is not the lawful owner and she is not in lawful possession of the property in R. S. No. 740/2. It seems that the third respondent also filed another petition on 9-3-1989 to exempt her from the provisions of R. 14 (2) of the rules.