The court held that challenging the mode of service is barred once the notice is received. The petitioners were granted two weeks to file a reply, and the petition was disposed of without adjudication on the merits of the land dispute.
Granted two weeks to submit a reply and enhanced costs made. Notice not stayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.01.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
W.P. No.869 of 2015 and M.P. Nos.1 – 3 of 2015
V. Thangaraj Petitioner
vs.
1 The District Collector
Coimbatore District
Coimbatore
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Coimbatore North
Coimbatore District
3 The Tahsildar
Coimbatore North
Coimbatore District
4 The Tahsildar
Annur Taluk
Coimbatore District Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 26.12.2014 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently, restraining the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's land in Survey No.107/2, Kattampatti Village, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District. For petitioner Mr. R. Nagasundaram for Mr. A.V. Raja ORDER
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality of the notice dated 26.12.2014 issued by the fourth respondent under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1905.
2 The prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the notice is that it has not been issued in accordance with the legal provisions and also, it does not specify as to within what time, the petitioner has to submit his reply/representation.
3 We have examined the documents and pleadings and also considered carefully, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4 Once the petitioner is in possession of a copy of the notice, the manner involved in service of notice is not important. The method is always laid down only for the purpose of effective service. After service has been effected and the petitioner is in possession of a copy of the notice, it is not open to him to challenge the mode of service of notice.
5 So far as the time to submit his reply/representation is concerned, we grant the petitioner, as requested, two weeks time, to submit his reply to the said notice. The authorities are, thereafter, at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law and on its own merits, after considering the reply/representation to be submitted by the petitioner.
5 With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Costs made easy. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cad To 1 The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Coimbatore North Coimbatore District
W.P. No.869 of 2015
ksj(co) pmk,29.1.2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mode of service of a notice can be challenged after the recipient has received it.
Whether a specific time limit for submitting a reply to the notice was statutorily mandated.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Thangaraj
The District Collector, Coimbatore District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore North
The Tahsildar, Annur Taluk
Satish K. Agnihotri
M. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
