Disposed

R.Surendar v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2023WA/2558/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal filed under Cl. 15 of Letters Patent against a Single Judge order. The Court granted liberty for appellants to file an appeal against the 2015 Sub-Collector order within 15 days, with limitation benefits accruing from the date of the current judgment due to the pendency of the underlying W.P. No.33413 of 2015.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted 15 days to file appeal against Sub-Collector's 2015 order; limitation benefits granted for that appeal due to pendency.

R.Surendar Vs The Sub Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WA No.2558 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

WA No.2558 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.21592 of 2023

¶9

1.R.Surendar

¶10

2.N.Udayachander

¶11

3.N.Jayachandar

¶12

.. Appellants

¶13

-vs-

¶14

The Sub Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore Distirct.

¶16

Arulmihu Ammaneeswaraswamy Thirukovil Rep by its Executive Officer, Karapadi, Moolanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶17

Arulmihu Varadarajaperumal Thirukovil, Rep by its Executive Officer, Moolanur Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District

¶18

S.Sruthi

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

WA No.2558 of 2023

¶22

6. S.Swathi Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.33413 of 2015.

¶24

For the Appellants : Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For the Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for RR 1 & 2 : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Spl.Government Pleader For RR 3 and 4 : Service awaited for RR 5 & 6 * * * * *

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶27

We have heard Mr.S.Thirumavaalavan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WA No.2558 of 2023

¶31

The appellants/petitioners had filed writ petition bearing W.P.No.33413 of 2015 thereby challenging the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, cancelling patta.

¶32

The learned Single Judge under the impugned order has observed that it is open to the writ petitioners to assail the impugned order in the first writ petition in a manner known to law if so advised and if that be so. Likewise, the questions pertaining to title are left open.

¶33

It is submitted that the District Revenue Officer has now initiated the enquiry. The impugned order is of the year 2015. The learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents do not dispute that the said order of the Sub-Collector of the year 2015 is appellable order. The learned Single Judge has also granted liberty to the appellants to assail the said order. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, now the appellants would file an appeal against the order of the Sub-Collector passed in the year 2015. However, the

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

WA No.2558 of 2023

¶37

benefit of limitation on account of pendency of the writ petition be accorded to the appellants.

¶38

If the appellants file an appeal within fifteen days from

¶39

today, then the same would be construed within limitation. We have observed so as the writ petition challenging the said order was pending since the year 2015.

¶40

Needless to state, the contentions of the respective parties

¶41

are kept open.

¶42

The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 07.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶44

sra

¶45

Page 4 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

WA No.2558 of 2023

¶48

¶49

The Sub Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶50

The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore Distirct.

¶51

The Executive Officer, Karapadi, Arulmihu Ammaneeswaraswamy Thirukovil Molanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶52

The Executive Officer, Moolanur Arulmihu Varadarajaperumal Thirukovil, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

WA No.2558 of 2023

¶56

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(sra)

WA No.2558 of 2023

07.12.2023

Page 6 of 6

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

R.Surendar v. The Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Surendar v. The Sub Collector

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

Globecast Steel Limited Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

The Project Director Vs M.Kuzhanthavel

N.S.Haribabu Vs The District Collector

The Secretary to Government Vs G.Dhandapani

M.Sathish Vs The District Collector

B.Sekar Vs Chief Secretary