Dismissed

Sulochana Ammal v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC24 Jan 2023WP(MD)/19893/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for possession of land and eviction, the High Court dismissed the petition because the substantive issue is pending second appeal before the same Court. The Court held that since an aggrieved party has a remedy in the pending appeal, the writ has no cause to investigate the eviction. No costs or costs allowance were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected and dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Sulochana Ammal Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19893 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.19893 of 2013

¶8

and

¶9

M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013

¶10

1.Sulochana Ammal 2.S.Arunachalam 3.S.Anbalagan 4.S.Duraisingam

¶11

Rep. by Power Agent S.Arunachalam 5.S.Sidharthan 6.A.Santhini 7.Padmini

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

-Vs-

¶14

1.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶15

2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to put back the petitioners

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.19893 of 2013

¶20

forthwith in possession of the 3.53.0 hectares of land in Survey No.163 of Nadumandalam Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, from which land the petitioners were unlawfully evicted on 22.11.2013 apart from paying such compensation to the petitioners as may be determined by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶24

The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking possession of the

¶25

land to the extent of 3.53.0 hectares in Survey No.163, Nadumandalam Village,

¶26

Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶27

2.According to the petitioners, they filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2008

¶28

on the file of the learned District Munsif, Natham seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents herein and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioners. Challenging the same, the respondents filed an appeal in A.S.No.95 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul and the same

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.19893 of 2013

¶32

was allowed by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.901 of 2013, wherein an interim order was granted and the same is still pending. Pending the same, the respondents have taken action for removing the petitioners from the land in question. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

¶33

3.The learned Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they have to take immediate action for getting interim order. Therefore, at that time, since there is no legal embargo for taking possession of the land in question, the respondents have taken steps for removal of the petitioners from the land in question.

¶34

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record carefully.

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.19893 of 2013

¶38

5.It is an admitted fact that the petitioners filed a suit, seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed an appeal and the same was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the respondents have proceeded with for evicting the petitioners from the land in question.

¶39

6.We are of the view that the prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted for the simple reason that the entire issue is now pending consideration before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.901 of 2013. Therefore, the petitioners are having remedy in the Second Appeal. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

[D.K.K., J.] & [R.V., J.] 24.01.2023

¶41

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶42

MYR

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.19893 of 2013

¶46

¶47

1.The Tahsildar,

¶48

Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶49

2.The District Collector,

¶50

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.19893 of 2013

¶54

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶55

MYR

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.19893 of 2013

¶57

24.01.2023

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

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

Sulochana Ammal v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana Ammal v. the Tahsildar

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

M/s.Ksm Leather Exports Vs The Authorized Officer / Assistant General Manager

Leonammal Corera Vs The Commissioner of Corporation

The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Vs S. Jeganathan Jebaraja

Ramesh.M Vs The District Collector

Priyadharshni.R Vs The Thasildar

Maniram.M Vs The Authorized Officer