Dismissed

U.Anandan Pillai v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Jul 2017WA(MD)/1236/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appearing before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the Court dismissed a writ appeal filed against an order allowing a tenant to harvest and sell paddy. The Court held that disputed factual questions should be determined by the civil court where a suit was pending, precluding the writ jurisdiction from interfering.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal stands dismissed. The District Munsif is directed to dispose of the suit on merits within six months without being influenced by this judgment.

U.Anandan Pillai Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2014

¶7

U.Anandan Pillai ...Appellant/Writ Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk,

¶11

Srivaikuntam, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Srivaikuntam Police Station, Srivaikuntam, Thoothukudi District. 4.S.Paldurai ... Respondents/Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.20055 of 2013, dated 28.02.2014.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD)No.20055/2013:-

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to remove the Board Installed by him in the petitioner's land situated in Survey No.230/2A, Srivaikuntam Kaspa and Village, Thoothukudi District as well as direct the 3rd respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner's life property.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition has been filed inter alia alleging that the appellant is a cultivating

¶18

¶19

tenant and a caution board has been clandestinely put up by the respondent No.2 and therefore, some yield have to be removed with further direction to the respondents to give adequate protection.

¶20

Admittedly, for the very same relief, the appellant had

¶21

filed a suit claiming to protect his possession on the premises that he is a cultivating tenant of a temple, who is not a party before us. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the petitioner/appellant has raised paddy, passed an order permitting the appellant to harvest the same and deposit the amount to the credit of Suit. An interim direction was also granted. Challenging the same, the appellant is before us.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

¶23

order has been passed contrary to the relief sought for.

¶24

Such a contention is rejected, since the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is rather wide. The learned Single Judge took notice of the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant and declined to agitate the very same issue. In fact, the learned Single Judge in our considered opinion has granted an order in favour of the appellant. There is no need in filing this appeal. This Court cannot go into the disputed question of facts, especially when a civil Court is looking into that aspect. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. The learned District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.124 of 2013, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned District Munsif is directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this proceedings. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CSIII)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Srivaikuntam, Thoothukudi District.

¶31

3.The Inspector of Police, Srivaikuntam Police Station, Srivaikuntam, Thoothukudi District.

¶32

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.63489 Copy to:- The District Munsif, Srivaikundam jikr

¶33

RL/6C/2P/KP/SAR1/20/7/2017

¶34

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

¶35

04.07.2017

U.Anandan Pillai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Anandan Pillai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marudhai Vs the Commissioner of Police

D. Stephen, Vs the Principal Secy. to Govt.

C.Maruthamuthu Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Samydurai Vs M.Darmaraj

Anjelo Mery Vs the Superintendent of Police

Selvi, Vs the Principal Secretary to