Disposed

A.K.Sivasankaran, v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Mar 2020WP(MD)/10954/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of writ petitions seeking removal of electric poles and injunction against water pipeline laying. The court noted a pending civil suit on the same property, ruling that courts should not act as civil courts. Writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to seek specific relief in the civil forum.

What did the court decide?

No costs; parties relegated to the Civil Court for the primary relief sought in the writ petitions.

A.K.Sivasankaran, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P(MD)Nos.10954 & 14598 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.8374, 16148 & 11884 of 2019

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019

¶7

A.K.Sivasankaran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Tallakulam, Madurai – 2.

¶9

3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, Madurai – 7. 4.The Joint Sub Registrar No.I, Palace Road, Madurai. 5.R.Sridharan 6.J.Renganayagi ... Respondents W.P(MD)No.14598 of 2019 A.K.Sivasankaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Tallakulam, Madurai – 2.

¶10

2.R.Sridharan 3.J.Renganayagi ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.10954 of 2019 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to remove the erected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/6

¶13

W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019

¶14

electric poles in the petitioner's property situated in T.S.No.48/3 (Present T.S.No.115) Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 9.

¶15

PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.14598 of 2019 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from giving permission to the respondents 2 and 3 to lay water and drainage pipe lines through the petitioner's property situated in T.S.No.48/3 (Present T.S.No.115) Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 9.

¶16

In both writ petitions For Petitioner : Mr.Babu Rajendran for Mr.S.Arivalagan In W.P.(MD)No.10954 of 2019 For R.1 and R.4 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen For R3 : Mrs.M.Rajeswari, For S.M.S.Johnny Basha For R5 & R6 : Mr.S.Prakash For Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶17

In W.P.(MD)No.14598 of 2019 For R1 : Mr.S.Chellapandian, Standing Counsel

¶18

For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Prakash For Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

Mr.A.K.Sivasankaran, S/o.A.K.V.RC.Krishnamoorthy, residing at D.No.213, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 9,is the Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions.

¶21

2.Even before commencing to state about the facts in these Writ Petitions, I am conscious of the fact that pleading the same issues, a Civil Suit in O.S.No.1037 of 2014 is now pending on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, which suit had also been filed by the very same A.K.Sivasankaran.

¶22

3.The relief sought in that suit is as follows :

¶23

“Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plaintiff against the defendants.

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019

¶26

(a) decreeing permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and partisans from in anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by trespassing over the private property of this plaintiff to erect electrical poles to take live overhead wires to neighbouring property.

¶27

(b) directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit and

¶28

(c) grant such other further relief as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

¶29

4.The relief sought in W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019 is as follows :

¶30

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to remove the erected electric poles in the petitioner's property situated in T.S.No.48/3 (Present T.S.No.115) Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 9 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

¶31

5.The relief sought in W.P(MD)No.14598 of 2019 in which, the first respondent is the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, is as follows :

¶32

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from giving permission to the respondents 2 and 3 to lay water and drainage pipe lines through the petitioner's property situated in T.S.No.48/3 (Present T.S.No.115) Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 9 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

¶33

6.The schedule to the property in the Civil Suit in O.S.No.1037 of 2014 is as follows :

¶34

“kJiu khtl;lk; , kJiu khefh; , fhkuh$h; rhiy ,

¶35

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

¶36

3/6

¶37

W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019

¶38

ghh;l; , g[J rh;nt eph; 48(3) , nlhh; eph; 213 , tp];

¶39

jPuzk; 2 kida[k ; 2212 rJu mofSk; cs;s

¶40

bfl;of;fl;ol kr;R kidtPL tifawh , ,jw;F

¶41

ehd;Fkhy;

¶42

fpHf;nf o.];.49 Kjy; 57 tiu cs;s tPLfs;

¶43

bjw;nf o.];;.eph; 47 vtbu];;l ;

¶44

iu];;kpy;

¶45

nkw;nf o.];;.ek;gh; 48(2) --

¶46

V.nf.utp kidtPL

¶47

nkw;go ehd;Fkhypy; fPH;g [uk; cs;s fhypkidapy;

¶48

gpujpthjpfs; Mf;fpukpj;J J}z;fis el;L Xth;bcwl;

¶49

gth; iyd; ,Gf;Fk; Kaw;rp.”

¶50

7.It is seen that the property in these writ petitions relate to T.S.No.48(3), Kamarajar Salai, bearing Door No.213, Ward No.1, Block No.56, present Municipal Corporation Ward No.72. The properties involved in the suit and writ petitions are one and the same. The relief sought in the suit and the relief sought in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.10954 of 2019 are practically one and the same except that they are differently worded. The parties in the suit and the parties in two Writ Petitions, where the relief sought are the same, except that there are a few additional defendants in the suit.

¶51

8.It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry is scheduled on 20.03.2020 at 3.00 p.m. which enquiry has been fixed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, again with respect to the same dispute and with respect to the very same property. In view of the fact that the authorities are seized with the disputes raised and more particularly, since the suit is also pending, it would only be appropriate that the parties are relegated to agitate their issues before the Civil forum. This Court can only examine the issues based on documents. These https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶52

4/6

¶53

W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019

¶54

documents have to transform to evidence. The documents will have to cross the tests of admissibility and must be proved in manner known to law. Then they must be declared genuine and finally be relevant to the issues. Such process can be done only during trial. The witness, who produces the documents is subjected to crossexamination and the veracity of evidence is also tested. Unfortunately, in a Writ Petition, documents remain as documents. Therefore, substantial relief to the satisfaction of the parties, can be granted only in the Civil Suit.

¶55

9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the relief sought in W.P.(MD)No.10954 of 2019 has not been sought for in the Civil Suit. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner, if he feels necessary, to file necessary application before the Civil Court to seek the same relief as sought for in W.P.(MD)No.10954 of 2019, since the learned Subordinate Judge deciding the Civil Suit, can decide all the issues relating to the said property. It is also made clear that the enquiry by the District Revenue Officer can proceed and the pendency of the Civil Suit should not in any way influence the mind of the Officials or on the parties. It is only appropriate that this Court only gives a finality to the Writ Petitions and relegate the parties to the Civil Court and before the Revenue Officials.

¶56

10.I am confident that, even though facts have not been stated since the Writ Petitions are being disposed of, disposal of the Writ Petitions today, may also not be taken either as an advantage or as an disadvantage by either of the parties, who are agitating their rights before the Civil Court and before the Revenue Official.

¶57

11.With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶58

// True Copy //

¶59

¶60

1.The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶61

2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tallakulam, Madurai – 2.

¶62

5/6

¶63

W.P(MD)No.10954 of 2019

¶64

3.The Superintending Engineer,

¶65

Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, Madurai – 7.

¶66

4.The Joint Sub Registrar No.I, Palace Road, Madurai.

¶67

+2 CC to M/s.S.ARIVALAGAN, Advocate ( SR-11819[F] dated 16/03/2020 )

¶68

+1 CC to M/s.T.S.MOHAMED MOHIDHEEN, Advocate ( SR-11824[F] dated 16/03/2020 )

¶69

+1 CC to M/s.V.RAGAVACHARI, Advocate ( SR-11870[F] dated 16/03/2020 )

¶70

+1. C.C. to Mr.S.CHELLA PANDIAN Advocate SR.No.12270

¶71

Common Order in W.P(MD)Nos.10954 & 14598 of 2019 16.03.2020

¶72

RM TK/12.05.2020/6P/10C

¶73

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

¶74

6/6

A.K.Sivasankaran, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Sivasankaran, v. the District Collector

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

Matchakalai Vs the Superintending Engineer

Gnanasekaran Vs the Revenue Divisionalofficer

I.Edwin Jose Vs The Colachel Municipality

S.Peter Raj Vs the District Registrar of Societies

K.Kirubakar Vs The Regional Transport Authority

T.Shanmugasundaram Vs K.v.v.G.Diwakar, I.R.S