Allowed

M/S.Southern Roadways Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Land

Madras HC19 Jun 2018WP(MD)/12603/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged observations made by the Commissioner of Land Administration while remitting a matter for appeal. The High Court held that such remarks prejudiced the appeal process and issued a fresh order to expunge them.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner of Land Administration to issue a fresh remand order expunging the observations on the merits of the case made in the impugned order dated 20.03.2018.

M/S.Southern Roadways Ltd., Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.06.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.12603 of 2018

¶7

M/s.Southern Roadways Ltd., Lakshmi Building, Usilampatti Road, Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016, Through its Liaison Officer. ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Office of the Commissionarate of Land Administration, Chepauk,

¶10

Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶12

3.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul.

¶13

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶14

5.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. ...Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Rc.No.E2/29817/2017 dated 20.03.2018, quash the same as illegal.

¶16

For Petitioner :Mr.M.P.Senthil For R-2 & R-5 :Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam Additional Government Pleader For R-1,3 & 4 : Ms.VPM.Vaishnavi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Advocate

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has obtained permission to take water from “Pambar”and “Cinchona” rivers by putting up “hydrums” and draw water through pipelines to his company at Kodaikanal. The Board of Revenue, in its proceedings in B.P.RT.No.515/77, dated 30.09.1977, had granted permission on certain conditions. Pursuant to the permission granted by the Board of Revenue, the District Collector, had also granted permission. While executing the order, the fourth respondent misconstrued the proceedings and demanded lease rent retrospectively from the year 1978 by way of the proceedings in Roc.No.755/1999/A5, dated 10.03.1999. The said order of the fourth respondent was challenged once again before the Board of Revenue. The first respondent, while remitting the matter to the third respondent / District Revenue Officer, Kodaikanal, for scrutiny, by his order dated 20.03.2018, has observed as under:

¶20

“In the instant case, the petitioner has reportedly erected hydrums in the Government land measuring to an extent of 50 sq.mts. Hence, the order of the RDO fixing lease rent for the Government land utilized for the formation of hydrums seems to be correct.”

¶21

It is the contention of the petitioner that when there is an appeal remedy available against the order of the fourth respondent before the third respondent, the first respondent ought to have simply remitted the matter without making any observations on the merits of the case. If the observations are made, the subordinate officials are bound to follow the same and it will amount to predetermination of the issue and render the appeal an empty formality. Therefore, he prefers the present writ petition seeking to expunge the remarks made by the first respondent.

¶22

On notice, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the matter is remitted back by the first respondent for the purpose of exhausting alternative remedy of appeal available before the third respondent against the order of the fourth respondent. The observations made by the first respondent will not in any way affect the disposal of the appeal on merits.

¶23

I have heard the rival contentions.

¶24

The first respondent had remitted the matter on the ground that the fourth respondent, in his order, has referred to the appeal provision. An appeal shall lie before the third respondent / District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, against that order. In that event, the first respondent should have remitted the matter without any observation. The observations made by the first respondent will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certainly have an influence on the third respondent before passing any order. Therefore, the observations made by the first respondent

¶25

¶26

on the merits of the case shall be expunged.

¶27

The first respondent is directed to issue a fresh order of remand by expunging the first four lines, i.e., “In the instant case, the petitioner has reportedly erected hydrums in the Government land measuring to an extent of 50 sq.mts. Hence, the order of the RDO fixing lease rent for the Government land utilized for the formation of hydrums seems to be correct.” from the paragraph No.3 of the order made in Rc.No.E2/29817/2017, dated 20.03.2018 to the petitioner herein. On receipt of such order copy, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the third respondent / District Revenue Officer.

¶28

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Office of the Commissionarate of Land Administration, Chepauk,

¶34

Chennai – 600 005.

¶35

2.The District Collector,

¶36

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶37

3.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul.

¶38

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶39

5.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶40

+1CC to M/s.M.P.Senthil, Advocate in SR.No.68868.

¶41

+1CC to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.69110.

¶42

¶43

DS/SB/SAR-1 :26.06.2018: 3P/8C Order made in

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.12603 of 2018 19.06.2018

M/S.Southern Roadways Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Land

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Southern Roadways Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Land

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

Praveen, S/O.Ponbadi, Vs the Assistant General Manager

M.Ramuthai Vs the District Collector

Tvl.Vasantham Departmental and Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

N.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector

M/S.K.S.a.Velladurai Traders Vs the State Tax Officer

Gangatharan Vs the Regional Transport Officer