Disposed

Minor Deeksheta Sai v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC8 Dec 2023WA/2932/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three appeals against a Single Judge order regarding land classified as Village Natham. The High Court disposed of appeals noting that appellants in possession cannot be evicted without legal notice. The court observed that the lower court did not decide title, which is for civil courts, and directed respondents to follow law for eviction. Appeals closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

All three appeals disposed of. No order as to costs. CMPs closed. Appellants leave to work out remedy before trial court for title.

Minor Deeksheta Sai Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶8

Minor Dheeksheta Saai .. Appellant in Rep. by natural Guardian & Mother WA No.2932/23 Padma Prashantini Minor Udvaithaa Saai .. Appellant in Rep. by natural Guardian & Mother WA No.2738/23 Padma Prashantini M.Mangala Gowri .. Appellant in WA No.2740/23 Vs.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpattu Division VOC Nagar, Chengalpattu Tamil Nadu 603 001. 2. The Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram Taluk Taluk Office Respondents in Thirukazhukundram 603 109. .. all W.As.

¶10

___________ Page 1 of 6_

¶11

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

¶12

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶13

Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 16.08.2022 made in W.P.Nos.24559 to 24561 of 2016.

¶14

For the Appellants : Mr.Sathish Parasaran Senior Counsel For Mr.G.Vivekanand

¶15

For the Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath Government Advocate

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶18

We have heard Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Vivekanand, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶19

The appellants had filed W.P.Nos.24559 to 24561 of 2016 challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram, thereby observing that the land is classified as a Village Natham and the request of the appellants for entitlement to the extent of 0.83 acres comprised in S.No.1447/7 in Nallathur Village, is not acceptable. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶23

Amongst other contentions of the learned Senior Counsel

¶24

for the appellant, one of the contentions is that the appellants are in possession of the subject writ land. The respondents cannot simply enter the land occupied by the appellants and drive the appellants out of the said land. The learned Senior Counsel relies upon Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶25

Learned Government Advocate supports the order passed by

¶26

the authority and the learned Single Judge.

¶27

The learned Single Judge has observed that the writ

¶28

petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedy before the trial Court by filing appropriate suit and canvass all their grievances with regard to the title over the subject property.

¶29

It would appear that the learned Single Judge has not decided the issue of title and has given liberty to the appellants to establish their title and interest before the competent civil Court or

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶33

such other forum as may be permissible under law. In that event, all the contentions with regard to right and title of the appellants would be open. The same has not been conclusively decided under the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶34

The respondents, if they intend to take any action for eviction of the appellants, certainly will have to follow the procedure of law of issuing notice and passing further orders, as may be legally permissible.

¶35

With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.23057, 23055, 24336, 23046, 23047 and 24337 of 2023 are closed.

¶36

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 08.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶37

kpl

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶41

¶42

The Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpattu Division VOC Nagar, Chengalpattu Tamil Nadu 603 001.

¶43

The Tahsildar Thirukazhukundram Taluk Taluk Office Thirukazhukundram 603 109.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶47

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

¶48

(kpl)

¶49

W.A.Nos.2932, 2738 & 2740 of 2023

¶50

08.12.2023

¶51

___________ Page 6 of 6_

¶52

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

Minor Deeksheta Sai v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor Deeksheta Sai v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

The Secretary to Government Vs G.Dhandapani

M.Sathish Vs The District Collector

R.Surendar Vs The Sub Collector

M/s. Tatia Intimate Exports Ltd., Vs the Director General

The Union of India Vs Dynamic

M/S.Nova Techset Limited Vs J.Sriram