Dismissed

Geetesan v. The Settlement Officer (South) Chennai

Madras HC17 Dec 2020WP/18126/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order under Art. 226 seeking Certiorari. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that the existence of a pending appeal to the Settlement Officer ousted the writ jurisdiction, though it directed the officer to decide the stay petition urgently.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as remedy by way of appeal was available and pending; Settlement Officer directed to decide stay petition within two weeks.

Geetesan Vs The Settlement Officer (South) Chennai — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.12.2020 CORAM :

¶2

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶3

W.P.No.18126 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos. 22516, 22517 & 23177 of 2020

¶4

Geetesan 2. Naresh Kumar

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

v.
1.The Settlement Officer (South) Chennai,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Settlement Officer (South) Chennai,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Attur Town & Taluk,
Attur, Salem District.
4. R.Mohan Ranganathan
5. S. Rajaram
6. R. Gokulakannan
7. R. Mala
8. Alamelu
9. Vijayalakshmi
10. Hari Govindan
11. Ambujam ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 07.10.2020 in RC.H1/855/2020 of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Ms. AL.Gandhimathi For Respondents : Ms. A. Mathumathi, Special Govt. Pleader - R1 to R3

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent and to quash the same.

¶11

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

¶12

As against the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioners have got remedy by way of an appeal before the 1^st respondent, viz., Settlement Officer (South), Chennai.

¶13

The 2^nd respondent, by order dated 07.10.2020, rejected the case of the petitioners and even in the order impugned in the Writ Petition, it was made clear to the petitioners that they have remedy by way of an appeal before the Settlement Officer. The petitioners have also filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (South), Chennai, in Ref/Case No.5032 of 2020 , challenging the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent and the same is pending.

¶14

Ms. AL.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners have sought for interim stay, the 1^st respondent has not passed any order in the Stay Petition sofar.

¶15

When the petitioners have filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent challenging the impugned order dated 07.10.2020, the petitioners cannot maintain two parallel proceedings. Hence, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the 1^st respondent- Settlement Officer (South), Chennai, is directed to pass orders in the Stay Petition on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the appeal in Ref/Case No.5032 of 2020, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To

¶17

1.The Settlement Officer (South) Chennai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶18

2.The Assistant Settlement Officer (South) Chennai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶19

The Special Tahsildar, Attur Town & Taluk, Attur, Salem District. +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 41844 +1cc to Ms. AL.Gandhimathi, Advocate SR.No. 41787

¶20

W.P.No.18126 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos. 22516, 22517 & 23177 of 2020

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A.SK(18.01.2021)

Geetesan v. The Settlement Officer (South) Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetesan v. The Settlement Officer (South) Chennai

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

Mrs.Farida Banu Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Pavan Doors and Windows Vs Industries Commissioner and

K.Chithrakala, Vs The District Registrar

Mr.P.Mani Vs the District Collector

T.M.Velusamy, Vs The District Collector

Mr.v.Chandrasekaran, Vs The District Collector