Allowed

D.Selvaraj v. The Revenue Divisional

Madras HC8 Sept 2014WP/21640/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court stayed a revenue enquiry and mutation regarding properties where a suit for partition by a relative was pending. Finding civil litigation ongoing between parties claiming under a common ancestor, the Court quashed the impugned notice to prevent piecemeal jurisdiction. (Writ of Certiorari allowed)

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Impugned notice in National Land Archives number 863/2014 set aside/quashed.

D.Selvaraj Vs The Revenue Divisional — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

¶6

M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014

¶7

D. Selvaraj ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai.

¶10

Mr.V. Sekar ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in pursuant to his impugned notice in Na.Ka. 863/2014 A dated 03.07.2014 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶12

For Petitioner :: Mr.R. Gopinath
For Respondents:: Mr.R. Vijayakumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1
Ms. S. Shalini for R2
O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a notice of enquiry issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act.

¶14

Heard Mr.R. Gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent and Ms.S. Shalini, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

While the petitioner in the writ petition is the son of one Duraisamy Naicker, the 2^nd respondent is the grandson of Duraisamy Naicker through Duraisamy Naicker's daughter, by name,

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

Punniyavathi Ammal. The 2^nd respondent's mother, Punniyavathi Ammal, who is none other than the petitioner's own sister, filed a suit for partition in O.S. No. 693 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur. The said suit is now pending. It appears that in the meantime, the petitioner himself filed a suit in O.S. No. 312/2002 on the file of the very same Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the 2^nd respondent herein, his mother and others from alienating or encumbering the properties listed in the suit schedule. An ex parte decree of permanent injunction appears to have been granted on 22.02.2010.

¶18

First of all, I do not know why the suit for partition filed by the 2^nd respondent's mother wayback in the year 2000, is not tagged along with the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner herein. The question of the 2^nd respondent and his mother, remaining ex parte in the petitioner's suit, would not have arisen, if both suits had been taken up together. Whatever it be, there is an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, now pending, at the instance of the 2^nd respondent's mother.

¶19

In view of the pendency of the suit for partition, I do not think that the Revenue Divisional Officer should be permitted to conduct an enquiry and effect mutation in the revenue records. It may be true that in the suit for partition, the 2^nd respondent's mother has not included some of the properties. But, since, no final decree has, so far, been passed, the parties are always at liberty to make suitable prayer for amendment before the Court below.

¶20

In view of the above, considering the fact that the parties claim under a common ancestor and that the parties are already before the Civil Court, the 1^st respondent cannot hold any enquiry and hence, the impugned notice is set aside. It will be open to the parties to work out their remedies before the Civil Court, in respect of all the properties, without having a civil litigation in a piecemeal manner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.Ps are closed.

¶21

/true copy/

¶22

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Chennai.

¶26

1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 42500

¶27

2 ccs to M/s.S. Shalini, Advocate, Sr. 42366

¶28

1 cc to M/s.R. Gopinath, Advocate, SR. 42236

¶29

W.P. No. 21640 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
KGK (CO)
kk 17/9

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D.Selvaraj v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Selvaraj v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Karunakaran Vs The Sub Registrar

D.Keerthi, Vs The Secretary

Mohideen Haniff Vs The Chief Passport Officer

M.Dheen Lokeshwaran Vs the Union Government of

S.Nithyanandham Vs The District Collector

K.R.Rohit (Minor) Vs Dr.R.G.Sukumar