High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 12 MAD CK 1971

A.Ramalingam vs Revenue Divisional Officer And Others

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench · Decided on 12 December 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 20627 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 373 words

Krishnan Ramasamy, J

1.

This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed before the first respondent by the petitioner dated 12.07.2023 as against the order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1890/2022/A3 dated 27.02.2023 within a time frame as stipulated by this Court.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the President of Kelakottai Thevangar Mahajanasabai, which is under the control of Chinnalpatti Thevangar Mahajanasabai. The members of Kelakottai Thevangar Mahajanasabai were elected by 29 village people every three years. The earlier elected body was dissolved since the members started to function against the welfare of the Mahajanasabai. Thereafter, on 28.03.2022, new members were elected. The earlier body, without challenging the same, lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti and based on the same, the second respondent conducted a peace committee meeting on 27.02.2023, in which an order was passed by the second respondent on 27.02.2023 directing the petitioner to approach the Chinnalapatti Thevangar Mahajanasabai or civil court, against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent.

3.

The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that regarding the decision arrived at in the peace committee meeting, the Revenue Divisional Officer will not have power and therefore, he is not in a position to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

4.

This Court has heard the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.

In view of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, the appeal regarding the peace committee meeting is not maintainable before the first respondent and however, the appeal is presently in the hands of the first respondent. Hence, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal by stating that no appeal is maintainable regarding the peace committee meeting within a period of two (2) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

6.

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.