Partly allowed

V.K.Ramasamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC23 Jan 2023WP/1502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an interim administrative order regarding public land is sustainable until a pending civil suit concludes. The Court directed the civil court to decide the implicated interlocutory application on priority within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is sustained; the civil court is directed to decide the pending interlocutory application within six weeks.

V.K.Ramasamy Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.1595 & 1596 of 2023

¶9

1.V.K.Ramasamy

¶10

2.Dhanabakiam

¶11

3.Divya Danabakiam Ramasamy ... Petitioners

¶12

¶13

1.The District Collector, Erode District.

¶14

2.The Revenue District Collector, Gobichettipalayam,

¶15

Erode District.

¶16

3.The Tahsildar, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.

¶17

4.The Inspector of Police, Kadathur, Erode District.

¶18

5.S.Thandavamoorthy

¶19

6.S.Ramayal

¶20

7.Kumarasamy

¶21

8.A.Natarajan

¶22

9.K.Subramaniam

10.R.Varadarajan

11.T.Arulprakash

... Respondents

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

1/10

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

Prayer :

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.4530/2022/A1 dated 23.12.2022 and quash the same as illegal and thereon forbearing the 5^th respondent from any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property being all that piece and parcel of land, comprised in R.S.No.188/1, 188/2 and 199/4C situated at Karattupalayam B Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District till the disposal of the civil suit in O.S.No.115 of 2022 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

¶31

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunth Senior Counsel

¶32

For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Muruganraja Government Advocate for R1 to R4

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.4530/2022/A1 dated 23.12.2022 and quash the same as illegal and thereon forbearing the 5^th respondent from any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property being all that piece and parcel of land, comprised in R.S.No.188/1, 188/2 and 199/4C situated at Karattupalayam B Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District till the disposal of the civil suit in O.S.No.115 of 2022 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

¶35

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

¶36

2/10

¶37

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶38

Against the order passed by the respondent Revenue Divisional

¶39

Officer dated 23.12.2022, this writ petition has been filed.

¶40

Heard Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶41

petitioners who pointed out that, in fact suit has been filed by the opposite party i.e. the private respondents before the Civil Court in O.S.No.115 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, where, as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the private respondents filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.3 of 2022 where they sought for exactly the same prayer now they are able to get from the Revenue Divisional Officer through the impugned order.

¶42

Though the said interlocutory application is still pending before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam in the suit, presenting the said application by way of parallel proceedings, they approached the Revenue Divisional Officer and they are able to get order, therefore this would not stand in the legal scrutiny, he submitted.

¶43

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

¶44

3/10

¶45

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶46

Heard Mr.R.P.Muruganraja, learned Government Advocate

¶47

appearing for the official respondents and in view of the order going to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

¶48

The learned Government Advocate would contend that, in the last part of the impugned order, the Revenue Divisional Officer cautiously has stated that, since it was not only the claim of the private respondent but also by others, evaluating the evidence after conducting enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer has come to the conclusion that, since the land in question is being used as a public cart track or public pathway, the same should not be hindered for the time being and the said order would be subject to the outcome of the decision to be made by the Civil Court in the pending suit.

¶49

Therefore the learned Government Advocate would contend that,

¶50

the impugned order can only be construed as an interim measure taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer as he cannot decide whether it is a cart

¶51

4/10

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶54

track or only a private patta land belongs to the petitioners. As that issue necessarily has to be decided only by the Civil Court, this interim arrangement only has been made through the impugned order, hence it does not warrant any interference from this Court, he contended.

¶55

I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶56

As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the official respondents, the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order has stated the following:

¶57

“vdnt ek;gpa{h; tl;lk;. ful;Lg;ghisak; M fpuhkk; uP/r/188- 1. 188-2. 199-4 Mfpatw;wpy; cs;s tz;og;ghijapid kPs Vw;gLj;jpj;juf;nfhhpa[k;. mt;tz;og;ghijapd; bjhlu;r;rp gpdtUk; uP/r/188. 188-1. 195. 196. 199-3. 199-4C. 200. 202-2. 202-3. 202-4. 204. fhiyfspy; ePs;tJ Fwpj;Jk;. mtw;wpy; cs;s jlg;ghj;jpak; Fwpj;Jk; nfhgpbrl;oghisak; khtl;l cupikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;F vz; O.S.No.CFR No.560-2022 kw;Wk;

¶58

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

¶59

5/10

¶60

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶61

m/t/115-2022 Mfpatw;wpd; jPu;g;g[fSf;Fk; fl;Lg;gl;ljhFk;/”

¶62

Therefore, whatever the decision he has made through the impugned order is only subject to the outcome of the decision to be made by the Civil Court in the pending suit or pending application.

¶63

Since it was the claim of not only the private respondents but others as a public way or cart track or pathway, in the interest of the public at large, since this decision has been taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer only as an interim measure, this Court does not want to interfere with the said order.

¶64

But at the same time since for the very same relief, interlocutory application has already been filed in I.A.No.3 of 2022, as stated supra, in the pending civil suit by the private respondents, let the said interlocutory application be persuaded at the earliest and a decision can be rendered by the Civil Court, so that a quietus can be given to the issue raised by both parties.

¶65

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

¶66

6/10

¶67

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶68

In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of

¶69

this writ petition with the following orders:

¶70

(i) That the impugned order, for the time being, since

¶71

does not require to be interfered with, it is sustainable for the present i.e. until a decision is taken by the Civil Court in the pending suit or in the pending application in the pending suit.

¶72

(ii) At the same time, a direction also is given to the learned Judge viz., District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam to take up I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.115 of 2022 on priority basis and after recording the evidence to be adduced by both sides, the same shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order.

¶73

(iii) It is made clear that, the Civil Court can decide

¶74

the application as directed above, of course uninfluenced by whatever the observations or contentions made by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order. It is also made clear that, once an order is passed by the Civil Court,

¶75

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

¶76

7/10

¶77

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶78

the parties to abide by the same and if any order is passed in

¶79

favour of the petitioners supporting their claim that it is only

¶80

a patta land, no doubt the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer through the impugned order herein will come to an end.

¶81

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶82

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶83

23.01.2023

¶84

Index : Yes / No

¶85

Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶86

Note : Issue order copy on 30.01.2023

¶87

Sgl

¶88

¶89

1.The District Collector, Erode District.

¶90

2.The Revenue District Collector, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

¶91

3.The Tahsildar,

¶92

8/10

¶93

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

¶94

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

¶95

Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.

¶96

4.The Inspector of Police, Kadathur, Erode District.

¶97

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

9/10

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.1502 of 2023

23.01.2023

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

¶105

10/10

V.K.Ramasamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Ramasamy v. The District 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

Abaranji Vs The District Revenue Officer

U.Yousuf Khan Vs Deputy Inspector General of Registration

N.Sivakumar Vs The Sub Registrar

Preetha v Kannan Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

Palanisamy Vs The District Revenue officer

V.K.Ramasamy Vs The District Collector