Allowed

S.R.Jaisankar v. The District Revenue officer

Madras HC5 Jan 2023WP/24757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting revision due to pendency of a suit in unrelated properties. The court found the reason untenable as the suit did not cover the disputed land and set aside the order, remanding the matter for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.08.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration within 12 weeks with notice given to all parties.

S.R.Jaisankar Vs The District Revenue officer — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.24757 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.24692 of 2022

¶7

1.S.R.Jaisankar

¶8

2.E.Padmavathy

¶9

3.Dinesh

¶10

4.Indumathi

¶11

…. Petitioners

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

1.The District Revenue Officer Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶14

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶15

3.The Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶16

4.M.Manikandan

¶17

5.V.Veeraraghavan

¶18

6.K.Veeraraghavan

¶19

7.L.Ravi

¶20

…. Respondents

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to impugned order dated 10.08.2022 in Na.Ka.No.21933/2021/N-1 of the 1^st respondent confirming the order dated 29.07.2021 in Na.Ka.No.160/2016/A5 passed by 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶22

1 / 8

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader – for RR 1-3 Mr.V.Ganesh -for RR 4 to 7

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to impugned order dated 10.08.2022 in Na.Ka.No.21933/2021/N-1 of the 1^st respondent confirming the order dated 29.07.2021 in Na.Ka.No.160/2016/A5 passed by 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶28

With regard to the issuance of patta to the property at S.No.351/1 and 351/4 to the extent of 2.11 acres at Kanapalayam village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District, there had been a dispute, which was referred as appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed an order on 29.07.2021, of course against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the District Revenue Officer ie., the 1st respondent. The said revision has been considered and orders have been passed by the 1st respondent on 10.8.2022, wherein the 1st respondent had stated that, in view of the pendency of a civil suit in O.S.No.67 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, the issue cannot be decided at once now and accordingly rejected the revision by the said order, which is impugned herein.

¶29

2 / 8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶32

Assailing the said order, Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, insofar as the reason cited by the 1st respondent in not deciding the issue raised by the petitioner by way of revision is that, because of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2013, he would submit that the said suit relates to the properties in three schedules at Survey Numbers.225/2, 348 and 316/2C in Kannapalayam village. Apart from these three survey numbers, no other properties have been shown in the schedule of the said plaint and therefore the pendency of the said suit has nothing to do with the decision to be made in the revision filed before the 1st respondent and hence, the said reason cited by the 1st respondent would not stand in the legal scrutiny. Accordingly, he seeks the indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration.

¶33

Heard Mr.V.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, who would submit that, it is not only two survey numbers as has been covered in the order impugned, but there are so many other properties which belongs commonly to the petitioner as well as the private respondents, which formed part of a civil suit, where a compromise decree was entered into between the parties and all these facts have been comprehensively taken into account and that is why the 1st respondent has stated that the civil suit in

¶34

3 / 8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶37

O.S.No.67 of 2013 and its pendency is the reason for not taking any decision on the revision filed by the petitioner and accordingly he wants to sustain the impugned order.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents takes a similar view and he also wants to sustain the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶39

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for all the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.

¶40

As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the operative portion of the order impugned, the 1^st respondent has stated the following :

¶41

“vdnt jpUts;S:h; khtl;lk; g{e;jky;yp tl;lk; vz; 7. fz;zghisak; g[y/vz; 351-1. 351-4 tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh; 2/11 brz;l; epyj;jpw;F gl;lh rPuha;t[ kD Fwpj;J ghprPyid bra;jjpy;. g{tpUe;jty;yp rhh;g[ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jw;nghJ epYitapy; cs;s mry; tHf;F vz; 67-2013d; jPh;g;gpd; mog;gilapy; nky; eltof;if vLf;f ,aYk; vd;gjhy; nkw;fz;l g[yk; bjhlh;ghf jw;nghija epiyapy; vt;tpj eltof;if vLf;f ,ayhJ/ kDjhuupd; kD jw;nghija epiyapy; js;Sgo bra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/”

¶42

4 / 8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶45

However, on verification of the plaint schedule of O.S.No.67 of 2013 as referred to above, it is seen that only the aforesaid three Survey Numbers viz, 225/2, 348 and 316/2C have been mentioned. The other two survey numbers viz., S.Nos.351/1 and 351/4 have never been mentioned. Therefore, the said survey numbers mentioned in the impugned order is not the subject matter of the suit pending before the concerned Court as stated in the impugned order. Therefore, the 1^st respondent ought not to have stated the reason that because of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2013 the issue raised by the petitioner is rejected. In view of the factual matrix, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the said reason cannot be accepted for passing the impugned order. Accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

¶47

inclined to dispose of this case with the following order.

¶48

That the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for reconsideration.

¶49

During the reconsideration process, the 1^st respondent shall fix a date for hearing and give notice to both the petitioners as well as the private respondents well in advance (not less than five clear working days).

¶50

5 / 8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶53

●

¶54

Any input to be supplied by both the petitioners as well as the private respondents shall be taken into account, where, not only the details with regard to O.S.No.67 of 2013, but also with regard to the suit or appeal or compromise decree if any already between the parties shall also be taken into account.

¶55

Accordingly, a detailed order on merits and in accordance with law shall be passed by the 1^st respondent on the revision filed by the petitioners which is now remanded through the present order, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶56

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶57

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶58

05.01.2023

¶59

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order KST To

¶60

1.The District Revenue Officer Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶61

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer

¶62

6 / 8

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶65

Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶66

3.The Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶67

7 / 8

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.No.24757 of 2022

¶70

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶71

KST

¶72

W.P.No. 24757 of 2022

¶73

05.01.2023

¶74

8 / 8

¶75

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

S.R.Jaisankar v. The District Revenue officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R.Jaisankar v. The District Revenue 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

Malathi Selvam, Vs Special Tashildhar (Land Acq)

M.K.Ganesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs The Sub Registrar

S.Mallika Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Swathy Vs The District Registrar

Karuna Bhandari Vs Inspector General of