AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. S. Natarajan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar,
the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the second Respondent.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the second Respondent had
pointed out that the first Respondent had already passed an order, dated 24.06.2010, based on the direction issued by the second Respondent, by
his communication, dated 07.11.2009, rejecting the request of the Petitioner to recognise him as a cultivating tenant. In such circumstances, the
present writ petition is not maintainable.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the second Respondent, this Court
does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the Petitioner in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the Petitioner to establish his claim that he is a cultivating tenant under Arul
Migu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thiru Kovil, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District, before the appropriate authority or forum, in the manner known
to law.