Dismissed

Manoharan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC3 Oct 2019WP(MD)/21122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a revenue order concerning land entries. The court noted an overlap with a pending civil suit for easementary rights, holding that revenue authorities cannot decide disputed titles and dismissing the petition to avoid impediment to civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. The petitioner is allowed to approach the DRO for modification of the order post-disposal of the civil suit.

Manoharan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.21122 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.10.2019

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.(MD)No.21122 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).No.17768 of 2019

Manoharan

... Petitioner

/Vs./

1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶8

2.The Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶9

3.Shanmugavel ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.D6/17177/2019, dated 30.08.2019 and quash the same and consequent direction may be issued to the first respondent to pass order afresh within stipulated time.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondents : Mr.B.Bhagawathi (for R1 & R2) Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.B.Bhagawathi, learned Government Advocate who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents) are before this Court.

¶14

2.From the case file and from the submissions made before this Court, it comes to light that writ petition can be disposed of by passing an order, which is not adverse to third respondent, who is a private respondent. Therefore, with consent of aforementioned learned counsel on either side, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶15

3.Subject matter of instant writ petition pertains to certain entries made in revenue records pertaining to 'Survey https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.21122 of 2019

¶18

Nos.210/3A to 210/3Q and Survey No.475/1 in Kulathur Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District' (hereinafter referred to as 'said lands' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience).

¶19

4.Writ petitioner initiated certain proceedings before Revenue authorities regarding entries made in the revenue records pertaining to said lands. These proceedings before the Revenue authorities travelled to the 'District Revenue Officer' (hereinafter referred to as 'DRO' for the sake of brevity) and jurisdictional DRO being DRO of Tuticorin passed an 'order dated 30.08.2018 bearing reference No.b6/17177/2019' (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:

¶20

'Fsj;J}h; njw;F fpuhkk; ej;jk; Gy vz;fs; 210/3A Kjy; 210/3Q tiu 71 nrz;l; gug;gsT epyk; gl;lh vz; 1385y; jtWjyhf gjpthfp cs;s %d;W egh;fspd; ngah;fis e Pf ;fk; nra;aTk;> kw;Wk; ej;jk; Gy vz; 475/1;y; 61/2 nrz;l; epyk; kl;LNk ,e;J ehlhh; cwtpd;Kiwf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vdTk; ej;jk; epythpj;jpl;l mlq;fspy; 12 nrz;l; gug;gsT $Ljyhf½ fhz;gpf;fg;gl;l msTfis Kiwahf rhp nra;J juf; Nfhhpa jpU.kNdhfud; vd;gtuJ kD njhlh;ghf> rhh; epiy mYtyh;fspd; mwpf;if kw;Wk; fpuhk fzf;Ffis ghpr Pyid nra;jjpd; mbg;gilapYk;> Fsj;J}h; njw;F fpuhkk; Gy vz;fs 210/3A Kjy; 210/3Q tiu cs;s epyq;fspy; kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpaijf;fhd chpa Mtzq;fs; jhf;fy; nra;ag;glhjjhYk;> Gy vz; 475/1 njhlh;ghf tpshj;jpFsk; khtl;l chpikapay; e Pjpkd;wj;jpy; tof;F vz;: O.S.No.16/2015 MdJ epYitapy; cs;sjhYk; epy cilik Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l jpUj;jk; Nfhhpa jpU.kNdhfud; vd;gtuJ kD js;Sgb nra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.'

¶21

5.Assailing the impugned order, instant writ petition has been filed.

¶22

6.What is of significance is, the suit referred to in the operative portion of the impugned order being O.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam. Incidentally the writ petitioner himself is one of six plaintiffs, who have filed the suit. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that the suit is pending in the civil Court. Schedule to the plaint, which described suit schedule property reads as follows:

¶23

~ SCHEDULE

¶24

First Schedule

¶25

J}j;Jf;Fb khtl;lk;> tpshj;jpFsk; jhYfh> Fsj;J}h; fpuhkj;jpy; GQ;ir rh;Nt vz; 210/14B-y; 0.6.5 ncwf;Nlh;> rh;Nt vz; 210/4-y; 0.5 ncwf;Nlh; kw;Wk; 210/5-y; 0.47.0 ncwf;Nlh; vd ,Ue;J jw;NghJ GQ;ir rh;Nt vz; 210/14B-y; 0.6.5 ncwf;Nlh;> https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

2/4

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.21122 of 2019

¶28

rh;Nt vz; 210/4-y; 0.5 ncwf;Nlh; kw;Wk; ej;jk; rh;Nt vz; 210/5-y; 0.47.0 ncwf;Nlh; vd cs;s epyKk; mjpy; cs;s fl;blq;fSk;. ehd;F khy;: ehlhh;fs; gj;jpufhspak;kd; NfhtpYf;Fk; \ Nfhtpy; ee;jtdj;Jf;Fk; (njw;F kJut Puhrhkp ehlhh; Njhl;lj;Jf;Fk>; Re;juNty; ehlhh; Njhl;lj;Jf;Fk; (Nkw;F) Na$\ak;khs; Njhl;lj;Jf;Fk; (tlf;F) (fpof;F) njg;gf;Fsj;Jf;Fk; (tlf;F).

¶29

2-tJ jgrpy ;

¶30

\ khtl;lk;> \ jhYfh> \ Fsj;J}h; fpuhkj;jpy; rh;Nt vz; 475/1-y; fpoNky; tlgf;fk; 23.4 k Pl ;lh;> njd;gf;fk; 25.4 k Pl ;lh;> njd;tly; f Po ;gf;fk; 34.2 k Pl ;lh;> Nky;gf;fk; 30.8 k Pl ;lh; cs;s epyk;.

¶31

3-tJ jgrpy ;

¶32

\ khtl;lk;> \ jhYfh> \ fpuhkj;jpy; 2-tJ jgrpy; epyj;jpd; f Po ; filrpapy; fpoNky; 10 mb mfyj;jpy; cs;s eilghijf;F ehd;F khy;: rh;Nt vz; 475/1-y; cs;s ,uz;lhtJ jgrpy; k Pjp epyj;jpw;F fpof;F> rh;Nt vz; 475/4 epyj;jpw;Fk; Nkw;F> thjpfspd; 1-tJ jgrpy; epyj;jpw;Fk; tlf;F> fpoNky; nkapd; Nuhl;Lf;Fk; njw;F.|

¶33

7.In the aforesaid backdrop, it emerges clearly that the schedule suit that is pending in the jurisdictional Civil Court also pertains to said lands.

¶34

8.Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the suit is with prayer for declaration that they have easementary rights.

¶35

9.A perusal of the plaint prayer reveals that plaintiffs have claimed easementary rights over 3^rd schedule property for the purpose of having access to the 1^st schedule property. Besides this, there is also a prayer for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment of easmentary rights, which the plaintiffs claim qua 3^rd schedule property.

¶36

10.Learned State counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of official respondents (i.e., respondents 1 and 2) points out that there is a clear overlap between the civil suit and the proceedings before the Revenue authorities. It was submitted that merely because the suit is for easementary rights with regard to a pathway, it cannot be contended by the writ petitioner that the suit does not have any impact whatsoever over the proceedings before the Revenue authorities. It was also pointed out that the revenue authorities cannot decide on title and cannot declare rights, that too rights which are under disputation. Revenue authorities can only deal with revenue entries is learned State counsel's say.

¶37

11.In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court finds that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

3/4

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.21122 of 2019

¶40

12.However, it is made clear that after the disposal of the suit, if it becomes necessary and obviously subject to the outcome of the suit, it is open to the writ petitioner to approach the DRO for suitable modification of the impugned order.

¶41

13.Post finality of the aforesaid suit, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach DRO for modification of the impugned order, the DRO shall entertain the same and dispose of request for modification expeditiously, after putting all concerned on notice and after giving reasonable opportunity to all concerned on the merits of the modification request and in accordance with law. Though obvious, it is made clear that such proceedings of DRO besides being in accordance with law, it will also be in accordance with Civil Court decree subject to decree at any finality.

¶42

14.Though obvious, it is made clear that this order will not in any manner impact or impede pending Civil Court proceedings.

¶43

15.Instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶44

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

rmk

¶47

¶48

1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶49

2.The Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶50

+1 CC to M/s.T.A.EBENEZER, Advocate ( SR-91243[F] dated 04/10/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-91364[F] dated 04/10/2019 )

¶51

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.21122 of 2019 03.10.2019

¶52

JM/17.10.2019/4P/5C

¶53

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

¶54

4/4

Manoharan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan v. The District Revenue 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

K. Selvaraj, S/O.Karuppiah, Vs the District Collector

N.R.S.K.Pandian Vs The Secretary to Govt

R.Chandramohan, Vs the Food Safety Officer

Perumal, Vs the District Collector

M. Sorna Ganesh Vs the District Revenue Officer

K.Chandrasekaran Vs the Tahsildar