Dismissed

Saravanan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC3 Jan 2023WP(MD)/12318/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging ex-parte eviction orders, finding the grievance regarding the non-disposal of revision petitions is not maintainable as the petitions were returned for non-compliance with the application rules immediately prior to the writ filing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition directing the respondents not to demolish the petitioners' property is dismissed.

Saravanan Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021 and W.M.P. (MD) No.9671 of 2021

¶7

Saravanan

¶8

Amsavalli

¶9

Annalakshmi

¶10

Meenambal

¶11

Ravichandran

¶12

Madhavi

¶13

Pushbavalli

¶14

Seethalakshmi

¶15

Parvathi

¶16

Jeyalilli

¶17

Lakshmanan

¶18

Gomathi

¶19

Packkiyam ... Petitioners

¶20

-vs-

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

¶24

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Department, Nungambakam, Chennai.

¶25

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Department, Sivagangai District.

¶26

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Gowri Vinayagar Temple, Sivagangi Town, Sivagangai District.

¶27

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Department, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶28

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents not to demolish the petitioners' house property in Survey No.341 on the file of the Kanjarangal Revenue Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District and consequently direct the First Respondent to number and dispose the Revision Petitions against the order of M.P.Nos.22, 8, 19, 30, 10, 31, 15, 26, 16, 25, 13, 27, 12 of 2018 filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex-parte order dated on 25.07.2019, 25.07.2019, 25.07.2019, 19.09.2019, 27.02.2020, 25.07.2019, 19.09.2019, 05.12.2019, 28.11.2019, 22.08.2019, 22.08.2019, 19.09.2019, 24.10.2019.

¶29

For Petitioners : Mr. R.Udhayakumar

¶30

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

¶31

2/8

¶32

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

¶33

For Respondents : Mr. VR.Shanmuganathan (for R3)

¶34

Mr. Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader (for R1, R2 & R4)

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Heard Mr. R.Udhayakumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

¶37

Mr. D.Gandhiraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First, Second and Fourth Respondents and Mr. VR.Shanmuganathan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶38

This Writ Petition has been filed for directing the Third and Fourth Respondents not to demolish the petitioners' house property in Survey No.341 at Kanjarangal Revenue Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District and consequently to direct the First Respondent to number and dispose the Revision Petitions filed by the Petitioners.

¶39

3 . The First Respondent has filed a Counter-Affidavit dated 11.08.2021

¶40

3/8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

¶43

stating as follows:-

¶44

“12. ... It is strictly denied that though the writ petitioners

¶45

have filed Revision Petitions before the 1st respondent, no steps have been taken by the 1 st respondent and the Revision Petitions were kept in a cold storage. The above contention of the petitioners

¶46

is utterly false because they have not filed any Revision Petition before the 1 st respondent either in physical mode or any other mode in the year 2019. Contrary to that the present writ petitioners have filed Revision Petitions before the 1" respondent to set aside the exparte orders passed by the 2 nd respondent only one day prior to the filing of present writ petition (ie., the date of filing of Revision petitions is 13.07.2021 & the date of this Present writ petition filed is 14.07.2021). The said Revision Petitions were received by the 1st respondent's office only on 20.07.2021. Since, the petitions filed before the 1 respondent are not in a proper format as per the rules framed under "The Application and Appeal rules" and so returned on 23.07.2021 by the 1 respondent for the following reasons:-

¶47

1. The Revision Petition filed Under Section 21 of the TN H.R & CE Act 1959 against the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner should be filed as per the rules framed

¶48

4/8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

¶51

under "The Application and Appeal rules"

¶52

2. The Revision Petition should be verified and signed by the Petitioner.

¶53

3. Notice Charges at the rate of Rs.30/- for each respondent should be paid at the office of the Assistant Commissioner concerned or at this office and the challan to be enclosed.

¶54

4. 3 more additional copies of the Revision to be filed.

¶55

5. The Revision Petition has been filed out of time. There is a delay in filing. Copy of order is not received to calculate the delay if any.

¶56

6. n view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made

¶57

in C.A.No 4582/2019/dated 03.05.2019, the Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department is not empowered to condone the delay in filing petitions.

¶58

7. An Authenticated or a certified copy of the order should be filed vide Rule 8 of the Rules, under Section and (iii) of the Act. G.O.Ms.No 3158 dated 29.07.1961.

¶59

8. Court fee stamp of Rs. 10/- should be affixed in the Revision Petition.

¶60

In fact, the writ petitioners have filed this present writ petition not

¶61

5/8

¶62

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

¶63

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

¶64

only after a lapse of one and half years period, but after the issuance of subsequent eviction notices issued by the 4th respondent under section 79 of the Act and hence it is not permissible to stop the eviction process as against the encroachers under section 78

¶65

and 79 of the act and the petitioners are not entitled as prayed for.”

¶66

It requires to be pointed out here that the Writ Petition has been filed on 14.07.2021 immediately after the presentation of the Revision Petition on 13.07.2021 before the First Respondent and the said Revision Petition was returned on 23.07.2021. This Court, at the time of admission on 22.07.2021 had required the Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents to get instructions as to whether the Revision Petition said to have been filed by the Petitioner was in order. In view of the return of papers of the Revision Petition, the question of granting the relief as sought in the Writ Petition does not arise. However, it would not preclude the Petitioner from taking further action in terms of the return of papers as per law.

¶67

In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶68

6/8

¶69

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

¶70

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

03.01.2023

pkn

Index : Yes/No

Note: Issue order copy by 30.01.2023.

¶75

¶76

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Department, Nungambakam, Chennai.

¶77

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Department, Sivagangai District.

¶78

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Gowri Vinayagar Temple, Sivagangi Town, Sivagangai District.

¶79

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Department, Sivagangai District.

¶80

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

¶81

7/8

¶82

W.P. (MD) No. 12318 of 2021

¶83

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶84

pkn

¶85

W.P.(MD)No. 12318 of 2021

¶86

03.01.2023

¶87

8/8

¶88

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

Saravanan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakthivel.G Vs The Commissioner

Umamaheswari Vs The Chairman

Singaravel K.P.R Vs The District Collector

Jayams Manamagil Mandram Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

A1 Welfare Club Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Classic City Club Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise