This writ appeal against a direction to transfer land for road construction was disposed of by granting liberty to both respondents to work out their remedy via civil proceedings, noting appellants were not parties to the conflicting civil decrees.
Liberty granted to all parties to work out their remedy in the manner known to law; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.NO.1494 OF 2015
PRAYER IN W.P.NO.12963 OF 2006:-
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent o transfer the land in Survey No.46/1 and 46/2 in favour of Municipality enabling the 3rd Respondent to lay a thar tapped 16 feet road in Survey Nos.46/1, 46/2 and 49 as per
the direction of the first respondent in his order O.Mu.9503/04/16, dated 22/04/2004.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Arunkumar Government Advocate
For 1st Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Mani
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the impugned order passed in W.P.No.12963 of 2006 dated 28.03.2014, in and by which, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, directed the Collector, Namakkal District, to take appropriate action in pursuant to his proceedings in O.Mu.No.9503/04/L6 dated 22.04.2004 intimated to him that appropriate steps would be taken to transfer the land in Survey Nos.46/1 and 46/2 in Kailasampalayam Main Road, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District in favour of the Municipality for laying Thar Tapped 16 feet road.
also considering the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Munsif in O.S.No.84/1984 dated 12.11.1990 and in O.S.No.655/1985 dated 12.11.1990, liberty is given equally to both the 1st respondent herein as well as the respondents 2 and 3 to work out their remedy in the manner known to law as the appellants were not made as parties in the above said civil suits.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
+1cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate, S.R.No.55135
W.A.NO.1494 OF 2015
VSN-II(CO) PBS/26/11/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether liberty can be given to parties to work out remedy when impugned direction conflicts with civil decree in which appellants were not parties
Extent to which the ratio in Nilaviyal Vandi Pathai regarding patta lands runs through the present disposal
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
J.Jagadesh vs. The Tahsildar, Erode and anotherExplained¶20
J.Jagadesh vs. The Tahsildar, Erode and another reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 5446
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The District Collector, Namakkal District
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tiruchengode Taluk
The Commissioner, Tiruchengode Municipality
T.K.Deivasigamani
Saravana Kumar
Paneer
T.RAJA
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
