The two-writ appeals challenging the Single Judge's order allowing a writ petition were dismissed. The Court found no error in the impugned order, noting that the civil suit judgment was binding and the appellant's remedy remained intact. C.M.P.s were closed.
Writ appeals dismissed; C.M.P.Nos. 16483, 16484 and 16245 of 2023 are closed.
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.
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
K.Palanivel .. Appellant in both W.As. Vs. Kaveriyammal .. Respondent-1 in WA No.1918/23 Lakshmanan .. Respondent-1 in WA No.1862/23
The District Revenue Officer Office of the District Revenue Officer Kallakurichi, Kallakuruchi District.
The Revenue Divisional Officer/ The Sub Collector Office of the RDO/Sub Collector Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
The Tahsildar Chinnasalem Taluk Office Chinnasalem Kallakurichi.
Respondents 2-4 .. in both W.As.
Page 1 of 6
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 25.08.2022 made in W.P.Nos.20057 and 11849 of 2021.
For the Appellant in both W.As.
: Mr.Balavijayan For M/s.C.S.Associates
For the Respondents : Mr.R.Nalliyappan in both W.As. for Respondent-1
Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for Respondents 2 to 4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.Balavijayan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 4.
Single Judge thereby allowing the writ petitions filed by the first respondent.
Page 2 of 6
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
petition challenging the order passed by the District Revenue Officer.
Page 3 of 6
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
been kept in tact by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 28.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
Page 4 of 6
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
To
Page 5 of 6
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl)
W.A.Nos.1918 & 1862 of 2023
28.07.2023
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order in a writ petition challenging a revenue decision where the civil suit outcome remains intact.
Whether the Single Judge erred in granting liberty to apply for patta to the appellant despite an unsuccessful civil suit.
K. Palanivel
Kaveriyammal
Lakshmanan
The District Revenue Officer
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Tahsildar Chinnasalem
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala
P. D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
