The petitioner, an Adi Dravida, sought a writ of mandamus for fair allotment of property plots. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a similarly situated person had previously filed petitions on the same facts which were dismissed, rendering this petition unsustainable.
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 : 24.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.13233 of 2012
And
M.P.No.1 of 2012
M.Kamaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
5.D.Lakshmi ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 30.04.2012, in respect of the property situate in Survey No.140/5A, Valajanagaram Village, Ariyalur Taluk.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhiyan Additional Government Pleader
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 30.04.2012, in respect of the property situate in Survey No.140/5A, Valajanagaram Village, Ariyalur Taluk.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Adi Dravida and vide proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 27.05.1994, his wife was allotted plot no.71 in Survey No.140/5A, Valajanagaram Village, Ariyalur Taluk. Totally 95 allottees were allotted plots in Survey No.140/5A, out of which 63 of them including the petitioner belong to Arundhadiyar sector and remaining 32 of them belong to rival group. The said 63 of them were in the rear portion of the property without proper access and road facilities and hence they went on a protest on 08.08.1994 and 26.06.1995.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1995, the third respondent prepared a new sketch with a proposal for fair allotment of plots to both the groups. However, there was no further action. Hence the petitioner made representation dated 30.04.2012 to the first respondent seeking to merge the common area and allot plots in a fair and transparent manner, as per the second sketch given by the third respondent in 1995, however, the respondents 1 to 4 are taking steps to allot the front portion of the property in favour of the 32 allottees of the rival group. Hence, this writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that earlier one Saroja, similarly situated person like the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.4153, 27642 to 27673 of 2011 before this Court for the very same relief and this Court vide order dated 11.04.2012 dismissed the said writ petitions, as against which, writ appeals were filed and the said writ appeals were also dismissed and it appears that SLP is pending.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that the earlier writ petitions filed by similarly situated person was dismissed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner making representation to the respondents and filing this writ petition for the very same relief, is not sustainable one.
6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7.The facts in the present case is not disputed. Admittedly, one Saroja, similarly situated person like the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.4153, 27642 to 27673 of 2011 before this Court for the very same relief and this Court vide order dated 11.04.2012 dismissed the said writ petitions. It appears that as against the said order, writ appeals were filed before
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the said writ appeals were also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner making representation for the very same relief before the Authorities and filing this writ petition is un-sustainable one. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition.
8.This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, after disposal of the SLP filed by the similarly situated person, if any affirmative direction is issued in favour of the petitioner therein, it is open to the petitioner herein to work out the remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pri
To
W.P.No.13233 of 2012 And M.P.No.1 of 2012
GPL(CO)
GN(23/03/2022)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can file a fresh writ petition for the same relief sought by a similarly situated person whose petitions have already been dismissed.
M. Kamaraj
The District Collector, Ariyalur District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur
The District Revenue Officer, Ariyalur District
The Special Tahsildar, Adhidravidar Welfare
D. Lakshmi
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court