The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a land grabber alleging non-impleadment. The court held that since the District Registrar had already cancelled the contested sale deed, nothing remained for adjudication in the appeal, and it was closed.
The writ appeal, connected C.M.P., and the writ petition were closed. No costs.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.A.(MD)No.219 of 2018
and C.M.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2018
M.Arunagirinathan ... Appellant/3rd Party
Vs.
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD).No.11734 of 2014 and to dismiss the Writ petition.
Prayer in WP(MD)No.11734/ 2014 :
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 complete the enquiry and pass necessary orders as evidenced in the 1st Respondent proceedings Na.Ka.P2/15438/2012 dated 26.05.2014 within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Mathiew For R-1 : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For R-2 to R-4 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.)
By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal.
3
perused the materials placed before this Court.
continuing of his property in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.330/2 and 55/4, has lodged a complaint, on 05.05.2014, and just prior to that, filed W.P.(MD).No.11734/2014, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to complete the enquiry and pass necessary orders as evidenced in the proceedings of the first respondent therein, dated 26.05.2014, within a stipulated time and paragraph No.2 of the said affidavit, the first respondent herein / the writ petitioner would aver that;
“ at that time the police officials replied me that the land belongs to Government grabbed by the land grabbers, the Government alone competent authority to prefer a complaint against the said crime and therefore they can register the F.I.R only when the first respondent lodge a complaint before them.”
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
4
AKV
TE/SKN-RSK/SAR-3 : 12/04/2018 : 4P/7C
W.A.(MD)No.219 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2018
06.03.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filed by the appellant to set aside the order in W.P.(MD).No.11734 of 2014 deserves adjudication.
Whether the failure to implead the appellant in the original writ petition constitutes a ground for setting aside the order.
M.Arunagirinathan
G.Anaimuthu
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District
The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District
The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Virudhunagar
M.SATHYANARAYANAN
R.HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
