Dismissed

M. Paulraj, v. M. Shanmugavel

Madras HC13 Sept 2022WA(MD)/1022/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the writ appeal against the single judge's order quashing a patta mutation due to violation of natural justice. The Court upheld the impugned order and directed the Sub Judge to dispose of the pending civil suit on merits within four months.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the Single Judge's order was upheld; the Sub Judge was directed to dispose of the pending suit O.S.No.150 of 2015 on merits within four months.

M. Paulraj, Vs M. Shanmugavel — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD) No.8238 of 2022

M.Paulraj

... Appellant

-vs-

1.M.Shanmugavel

2.G.Periyakaruppan

3.The District Revenue Officer

¶13

Tuticorin, Tuticorin District

¶14

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Kovilpatti

¶15

Tuticorin District

¶16

5.The Tahsildar Vilathikulam Taluk Tuticorin District ... Respondents

¶17

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 08.06.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.1306 of 2017, on the file of this Court.

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.Jerin Mathew for R1 & R2 Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate for R3 to R5

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]

¶24

This writ appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 08.06.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.1306 of 2017.

¶25

2. The issue on hand relates to cancellation of Patta issued in the name of the respondents 1 and 2 herein, in respect of the property comprised in Old Survey No.214/1 and New Survey No.486/5 of Kulathur Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶26

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, by order dated 08.06.2022, finding that in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.(MD) No.1271 of 2016, a Division Bench of this Court directed the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin, to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant herein after hearing both parties viz ., appellant as well as the respondents 1 and 2 herein

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022

¶30

and since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, instead of the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin, had passed an order rejecting the mutation of Patta issued in the name of the respondents 1 and 2 and putting the appellant in their place, which is in clear violation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1271 of 2016 and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the respondents 1 and 2 herein were not given an opportunity of hearing, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and set aside the order dated 19.12.2016, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, mutating the Patta in the name of the respondents 1 and 2 herein.

¶31

4. That apart, since the appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.150 of 2015, before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the same is stated to be pending consideration, the learned Single Judge directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No. 150 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶32

5. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and carefully perusing the materials available on record, we are of the view that the above

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022

¶36

directions issued by the learned Single Judge do not warrant interference of this Court. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 08.06.2022 passed in W.P.(MD) No.1306 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, instead, since the appellant herein has already filed a suit in O.S.No.150 of 2015, before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the same is stated to be pending consideration, we direct the learned Sub Judge, Kovilpatti, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2015, filed by the appellant herein, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, purely on merits.

¶37

6. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 13.09.2022

¶39

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶40

Note to Office :

¶41

Mark a copy of this Judgment to the Sub Judge, Kovilpatti.

¶42

krk

¶43

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022

¶46

To:

¶47

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶48

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶49

3.The Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022

¶53

R.MAHADEVAN, J. and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶54

krk

¶55

W.A.(MD) No.1022 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD) No.8238 of 2022

¶56

13.09.2022

¶57

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M. Paulraj, v. M. Shanmugavel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Paulraj, v. M. Shanmugavel

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

Pudukottai District Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Suresh Vs the Managing Director

Nagavalli. P Vs the District Collector

S.Balakrishnan, Vs Union of India

Kalaimani.M.S Vs the District Collector and District Magistrate

Annaperumaayee Vs The District Collector