Disposed

Umamaheswari v. The Chairman

Madras HC2 Jan 2023WP(MD)/21917/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Local Body Ombudsman in a property tax assessment complaint. The Court held that the Ombudsman, being a statutory forum for official misconduct, lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes between private individuals regarding property title. The ruling emphasized that such civil disputes are exclusively for the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

Umamaheswari Vs The Chairman — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 16068, 16069 & 19236 of 2022

Umamaheswari

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman,

The Local Body Ombudsman, 100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.

¶12

2.Malik Feroz Khan,

¶13

The Chairman, The Local Body Ombudsman, 100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.

¶14

3.The Commissioner, Trichy City Municipal Corporation, Trichy City.

¶15

4.Selvi ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in his proceedings order No.

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶20

71/Maa/2022 dated 21.07.2022 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. B.Jameel Arasu

¶22

For Respondents : Mr. D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy (for R1 & R2)

¶23

Mr. R.Baskaran Additional Advocate General (for R3)

¶24

Mr. Antony Arul Raj (forR4)

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard Mr. B.Jameel Arasu, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy, Learned Counsel for the First and Second Respondents, Mr. R.Baskaran, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Third Respondent and Mr. Antony Arul Raj, Learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶27

The Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property

¶28

2/8

¶29

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

¶30

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶31

measuring as extent of 4908 sq.ft. comprised in old S.F. No. 173/1A corresponding to new T.S. No. 1/3, Ward AG, Block 15, K.Abishekapuram Village, Tiruchirappalli District and has filed suit against one S.Selvi in O.S. No. 231 of 2021 before the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli for declaration of her title and other consequential reliefs. The said S.Selvi had thereafter made a complaint before the Local Body Ombudsman, who is the First Respondent, against the Assistant Commissioner, Golden Rock Zone, Tiruchirappalli Corporation relating to assessment of property tax in respect of the said property made in favour of the Petitioner in which by Proceedings No. 71/Maa/2022 dated 27.01.2022, the following order has been passed:-

¶32

“vdnt jpUkjp/ bry;tpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l rh;nt vz; 173/1A1 part-y; cs;slf;fpa 4908 rJu mo ,lj;jpy; mtUf;F brhe;jkhd I!;th;ah !;Oy;!; vd;fpd;w fk;bgdp ,a';fp tUtjhYk; nkw;fz;l ,lj;jpy; vt;tpj fhypaplKk; ,y;iy vd;W bjhpatjhYk;. nkYk; KGikahd chpikahsuhd jpUkjp/ S.bry;tp cilikapy; mjhtJ fle;j 22 tUl';fshf mtuJ cilikapy; nkw;brhd;d fl;olk; cs;sjhYk; ehsJ njjp tiu brhj;J thp. kw;Wk;

¶33

3/8

¶34

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

¶35

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶36

jz;zPh; thp Mfpatw;iw brYj;jp tUtjhYk;. nkYk; kDjhuh; brhj;jpd; kPJ t';fpfspy; flDk; th';fpa[s;sJk; bjspthfj; bjhpfpwJ/ fhyp kidna ,y;yhj ,lj;jpw;F fhyp kid thp tpjpf;fg;gl;oUe;jhy; mJ bry;yj;jf;fjy;y/ mt;thW jtwhf thptpjpg;g[ bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhy; me;j fhypkid thptpjpg;ig uj;J bra;jpl chpa eltof;ifia clnd nkw;bfhs;s jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp khefuhl;rp MizaUf;F ,k;Kiwkd;w eLtk; MizapLfpwJ/ nkYk;. ,e;neh;tpy; khefuhl;rp mYtyh;fs; fhypkid thp tpjpf;Fk; Kd;ng me;j ,lj;ij khefuhl;rp epy msitaiuf;bfhz;L khefuhl;rp tUtha; gphptpdh; mstPL bra;J fhypkid thp tpjpf;f cfe;jjh vd;gij Kot[ bra;jpUf;f ntz;Lk;/ fhypkid thp Fwpj;J Kiwahd eilKiwia ,e;neh;tpy; khefuhl;rpahy; gpd;gw;wg;gltpy;iy vd;gij ,r;bray; vLj;Jf;fhl;oa[s;sJ/ ,e;epfH;t[ khefuhl;rp

¶37

4/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶40

mYtyh;fspd; bkj;jdg;nghf;ifa[k; flik jtwpa braiya[k; fhz;gpf;fpd;wJ/ neuoj;jzpf;if. fs Ma;t[ (Field Inspection) fs mstPL (Survey) tprhuiz nghd;wtw;iwa[k; bra;ahky; khefuhl;rp ,';'dk; bra;Js;sJ fz;of;fj;f;fJ/ Mjyhy; ,jpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l mYtyh;fspd; kPJ JiwhPjpahd xG';F eltof;if nkw;bfhs;s jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp khefuhl;rp Mizaiu mwpt[Wj;jp ,k;Kiwkd;w eLtk; MizapLfpwJ/”

¶41

Though the Petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings before the First Respondent, the aforesaid order is challenged by contending that the observations made therein are likely to prejudicially affect the rights of the Petitioner in the pending suit for declaration of title in O.S. No. 231 of 2021 before the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶42

The First Respondent, who is a creature of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014, is a forum only for enquiring into the complaints against the officials of the local bodies and it cannot by any stretch of imagination, determine inter se disputes relating to title of the

¶43

5/8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶46

property of private individuals. In such circumstances, it is made clear that the conclusions arrived in the impugned order passed by the First Respondent relating to the property claimed by the Petitioner and the said S.Selvi shall not in any way influence or inhibit the Civil Court from deciding the suit in accordance with law on the basis of evidences produced by the parties in support of their rival claims.

¶47

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶48

02.01.2023

¶49

¶50

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

¶51

Note: Issue order copy by 30.01.2023.

¶52

¶53

1.The Chairman, The Local Body Ombudsman, 100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.

¶54

6/8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶57

2.The Commissioner, Trichy City Municipal Corporation, Trichy City.

¶58

7/8

¶59

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

¶60

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶61

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶62

¶63

W.P. (MD) No. 21917 of 2022

¶64

02.01.2023

¶65

8/8

¶66

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

Umamaheswari v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umamaheswari v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Ramakrishnan Vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest(Hoff)

R.Ilanjiyam Vs the District Collector

M/s.Kushboo Creations Vs The Micro, Small Enterprises

Biram Baig Vs The Chairman

Vellaiyan Poosari Vs The Commissioner

Sakthivel.G Vs The Commissioner