Dismissed

R.Thanigaivel v. The District Education Officer

Madras HC20 Sept 2018WP/24803/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 praying for a direction to complete an enquiry regarding alleged illegal construction affecting his property share. The Court held that the dispute involving title and right to property is triable by the Civil Court. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the Civil Court in pending suits.

What did the court decide?

Rescission of the direction to complete the enquiry and dismissal of the writ petition. Liberty granted to approach the Civil Court in pending suits.

R.Thanigaivel Vs The District Education Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:20.09.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.24803 of 2018

¶6

R. Thanigaivel ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Education Officer Kancheepuram District.

¶9

The Inspector of Education
Education Department
Kancheepuram District.

¶10

The Director of Elimentary School
Education Department
Kancheepuram District.

¶11

Mrs. Bharthi, W/o late Gnanavel Correspondent Vetri Vidyalaya Primary School No.206, GST Road Karunkuzhi Maduandagam, Kancheepuram District. ..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry on the representation dated 08.06.2018 by the petitioner within a reasonable time.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.S.C.B.Muralikrishnan

¶14

For Respondents : Mrs. V. Annalakshmi (R1 TO R3) Government Advocate

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to complete the enquiry on the representation dated 08.06.2018 within a time stipulated by this court.

¶16

In the representation dated 08.06.2018, the petitioner has stated that the fourth respondent in this writ petition is trying to put up a Construction over a property, in which, the petitioner has 1/3rd share and that such Construction is illegal and therefore, the respondents shall take appropriate action to stop the construction. The petitioner has further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stated that the respondent, in case failed to take necessary

¶17

action against the illegal construction, he will take proper legal action in the suit in OS No.109 of 2016 on the the file of District Munsif Court, Madhurandhagam.

¶18

The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition is as follows.

¶19

The petitioner states that the property at Door No.20/6, G.S.T. Road, Karankuzhi Madurandagam Taluk, comprised in Survey No.403/9, 403/10 and 403/2011 measuring about 11 cents originally owned by the ancestors of the petitioner and that his father during his life time had illegally leased out the property in favour of the petitioner's brother.

¶20

It is not in dispute that in the property, the fourth respondent, viz., the wife of petitioner's brother as on date is running a School. The petitioner has already filed a suit in OS No.169 of 2006 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit properties including the property referred to above.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that he has made several representations to the official respondents not to grant renewal of recognition, on the ground that the fourth respondent is in illegal possession of the property. Since no action was taken, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry based on his representation dated 08.06.2018.

¶22

Considering the above submissions, this Court is of the view that if the construction put up by the fourth respondent is illegal, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate interim relief. When proper remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court, the petitioner cannot circumvent and seek relief before the authorities who is not competent to grant any relief after adjudicating the contentious issues regarding right, title or interest of the parties.

¶23

In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court in either of the Suits, which is pending in O.S.no.169 of 2006 or in the suit in O.S.No.109 of 2016, referred to by the petitioner in the representation. No costs.

¶24

pds/pvs

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-CCC)

¶27

// True Copy//

¶28

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

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The District Education Officer Kancheepuram District.

¶32

The Inspector of Education Education Department Kancheepuram District.

¶33

The Director of Elimentary School Education Department Kancheepuram District.

¶34

1 CC TO MR.C.B.MURALIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE SR 65654
+ 1 CC TO THE GOVT. PLEADER, SR 65840
KR/9/10/18 W.P.No.24803 of 2018

¶35

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

R.Thanigaivel v. The District Education Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Thanigaivel v. The District Education Officer

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

A.Vighneshwaran, Vs The Medical Council of India

S.Ashok Kumar(Minor) Vs The Secretary to Govt.

Dharma Medical Research & Vs the Union of India, Rep by

K.Jayakaran, Vs The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law

S.Sabareeswaran, Minor, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vallalar Illam, Vs State of Tamil Nadu