The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed against an order directing a son to vacate the father's house. The Court held the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to file a statutory appeal against the earlier order, which had become final.
Writ Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed and 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 01.12.2022
Pronounced on : 08.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No. 1965 of 2023 And
W.M.P.Nos. 2043 & 2044 of 2023
Mr.R.Sokkanathan ... Petitioner
..Vs..
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second
2
respondent proceedings under order No. Na.Ka.No.9002/2022/vg; dated 03.01.2023 and quash the same as illegal and invalid.
For Petitioner :: Mr. N.Suresh For RR 1 to 3 :: Mr. K.Tippu Sulthan Government Advocate For 4th Respondent :: Mr. J.Ramesh
ORDER
The Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of Certiorari seeking records of the second respondent / the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, in order No. Na.Ka.No.9002/2022/vg; dated 03.01.2023 and quash the same.
2 . The writ petitioner is the son of the fourth petitioner. It is stated that the fourth petitioner, who is a retired School Teacher was possessed of one property and he had sold it and had divided the sale consideration by giving a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- lakhs to each one of his three sons including the writ petitioner and Rs.18,00,000/- to each one of his four daughters.
3
petitioner was living. It is stated that the petitioner wanted to purchase it for consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- and had paid an advance of Rs.5,50,000/-. It is stated that the advance was given in cash and there was no written agreement. It had been stated that subsequently the fourth respondent wanted the petitioner to vacate and since the petitioner refused, the fourth respondent had given a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The second respondent/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, had conducted an enquiry and passed an order in Mu.Mu.2600/2022/F dated 05.07.2022. By that order, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of two months.
4
Na.Ka.No. 9002/2022/F directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and
handover possession to the fourth respondent. It must be mentioned that the premises is situated at Moramadhu Village in S.No. 576 / 20 in patta No. 253, measuring 0.01.71 hectares and is a house. Questioning this particular order, the Writ Petition has been filed.
5
passed only on further directions of the first respondent/District Collector and an appeal had not been filed before the District Collector by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent. It had therefore been stated that the Writ Petition should be dismissed.
6
7. Heard the learned counsels.
7
8
appeal. The statement made by the petitioner that he actually filed an appeal is not supported by records. The order had therefore become final.
9
No prayer had been sought seeking permission to file an appeal and to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The order has to be obeyed and the order should stand. It is also to be noted that the writ petitioner had received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- uniformly with his other brothers when the fourth respondent had sold a house and shared the sale proceeds. It is correctly contended on behalf of the respondents that the Writ Petition is not maintainable since the writ petitioner had not chosen to any appeal against the order order of the second respondent dated 05.07.20222 even though a provision was available under the Act.
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stands closed.
08.12.2023
vsg
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order
10
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
To
Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.No. 1965 of 2023 And W.M.P.Nos. 2043 & 2044 of 2023
08.12.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ of Certiorari is maintainable when the petitioner did not exercise the statutory right to appeal against the order below.
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer had the authority to direct the petitioner to vacate the premises under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. R. Sokkanathan
The District Collector, Krishnagiri
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri
The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri
Mr. G. Rajendran
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
