Partly allowed

K.a.Shanmugavel. v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2022WP(MD)/9323/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench fixed a date for the petitioner and private respondents to appear before the Administrative Tribunal for an enquiry regarding Kattalai lands, directing the respondent authorities to maintain status quo and hear objections before passing orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner and private respondents directed to appear before 2nd respondent for enquiry; status quo maintained; no order on costs.

K.a.Shanmugavel. Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009 and

¶7

M.P(MD)Nos.1,1,2 & 2 of 2009

¶8

W.P(MD)No.9323 of 2009:

¶9

K.A.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶13

H.R & C.E Department, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

3.The Executive Officer, A/M.Thirupuranthireeswarar Thirukkoil, Palayamkottai,

¶15

Tirunelveli.

¶16

4.K.A.Murugappan

¶17

5.M.Kumudavalli (Died)

¶18

6.S.S.Visalakshiammal

¶19

1/7

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶22

7.K.A.Velappan

¶23

8.V.Muthu Veerappan (Died)

9.M.Saraswathi

10.M.Thiyalnayaki

11.M.Subha

12.M.Sendhilnathan ... Respondents

¶28

(R8 to R12 are substituted vide Court order, dated 07.03.2019 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013)

¶29

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 04/05/2009 in Na.Ka.No.4189/08-1, ,3 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the right of the petitioner to perform the Kattalai and administer the Kattalai properties attached to A/M Thirupuranthireeswarar Thirukkoil, Palayamkottai, Tirunelvei district, as hereditary trustees.

¶30

W.P(MD)No.9324 of 2009:

¶31

K.A.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner

¶32

Vs. 1.The Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

¶33

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

¶34

2/7

¶35

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶36

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶37

3.The Executive Officer, A/M.Thirukkuttralanathar Thirukkoil, Courtallam,, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶38

4.K.A.Murugappan

¶39

5.M.Kumudavalli (Died)

¶40

6.S.S.Visalakshiammal

¶41

7.K.A.Velappan

¶42

8.V.Muthu Veerappan (Died)

¶43

9.M.Saraswathi

¶44

10.M.Thiyalnayaki

¶45

11.M.Subha

¶46

12.M.Sendhilnathan ... Respondents

¶47

(R8 to R12 are substituted vide Court order, dated 07.03.2019 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013)

¶48

¶49

3/7

¶50

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

¶51

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶52

consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the right of the petitioner to perform the Kattalai and administer the Kattalai properties attached to A/M Thirukutralanathar Temple, Courtallam, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, as hereditary trustees.

¶53

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ganapathi Raman (In both cases) For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Ragavendran Standing Counsel (In both cases) For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar (In both cases) For R4,R9 - R12 : No Appearance (In both cases)

¶54

COMMON ORDER

¶55

The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent/Joint Commissioner, directing the 3^rd respondent to take over the Kattalai lands endowed and perform the Kattalai as per the wishes of the Kattalaidhar. The said order has been passed as the petitioner and the private respondents failed to appear for hearing on 26.11.2008, 30.01.2009 and 23.03.2009. The 3^rd respondent, by further communication, dated 09.06.2009, had called upon the

¶56

4/7

¶57

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

¶58

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶59

petitioner to hand over the lands as there were objections by the Kattalaidhars. Thereafter, they have moved this Court by filing the instant writ petitions. An interim order has been granted as early as on 18.09.2009 and the same has been continued by further orders. It is also admitted by the 3^rd respondent that the possession of the lands is with the private parties.

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the respondents 4,6,7, 9 to 12 are undertaking to attend an enquiry before the 2^nd respondent.

¶61

In the light of the aforesaid undertaking, I direct the petitioner and the respondents 4,6,7, 9 to 12 to appear before the 2^nd respondent either in person or through their authorized representatives on 26.12.2022. The 2^nd respondent is directed to hear the objections of the petitioner and the respondents 4,6,7, 9 to 12 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is open to the respondents 1 to 3 to act in accordance with the orders that will be passed by the 2^nd respondent. Till such time, status quo shall be maintained.

¶62

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶64

With the above said directions, this Writ Petition stands

¶65

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶66

16.12.2022

¶67

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶68

¶69

1.The Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

¶70

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶71

3.The Executive Officer, A/M.Thirupuranthireeswarar Thirukkoil, Palayamkottai,

¶72

Tirunelveli.

¶73

6/7

¶74

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

¶75

W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶76

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶77

gbg

¶78

Order made in W.P(MD)Nos.9323 & 9324 of 2009

¶79

Dated: 16.12.2022

¶80

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.a.Shanmugavel. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Shanmugavel. v. the Commissioner

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

Aapl Infra Private Ltd., Vs Union Bank of India

Thiru P.Kannan, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Arulmighu Vitoba Bajanai Vs the Commissioner

S. Kathiresan, Vs the District Collector

M. Ganesh Sankar, Vs the Commissioner

Noorul Nazreen, Vs K.Mohammed Kassali