The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition questioning revenue orders passed over ten years ago. The petition was quashed because the petitioner had suppressed the fact that a related civil suit was pending in which he was also a defendant.
The Writ Petition stood dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were 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.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.225 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.162 and 166 of 2022
M.Abdul Malik
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The District Revenue Officer-cumDistrict Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District.
4.The Tahsildar, Enmanankondan Village, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District.
5.Syed Ibrahim
6.Naina Mohamed
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.A-6/1990/2010,
1/5
dated 28.05.2010 and consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.B5/C.R./325/2010, dated 01.07.2011 and further to direct the fourth respondent not to mutate the revenue records based upon the above orders and further to direct the fifth and sixth respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner.
For Petitioner :Ms.M.Rajeswari For R1 to R4 :Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan Special Government Pleader For R5 and R6 :Mr.J.M.Hassanul *****
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with an order of the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram in Na.Ka.No.A-6/1990/2010, dated 28.05.2010 and the consequential impugned order of the second respondent/District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram in Na.Ka.No.B5/C.R./325/2010, dated 01.07.2011.
2.Heard Ms.M.Rajeswari, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.J.M.Hassanul, learned Counsel for the
2/5
respondents 5 and 6.
3.The Writ Petition dated 03.01.2022 had been filed questioning an order, which had been passed nearly more than ten years back. Let me not go into a detailed examination because notice had been directed to the fifth and sixth respondents and the learned Counsel stated that the fifth and sixth respondents had filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 2022, which is now pending before the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram and the petitioner is also a defendant, who had also entered appearance.
4.The fact of that particular suit had been totally suppressed in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. At any rate, it is the Sub Court, which will now have to examine all the issues between the petitioner on the one hand and the fourth and fifth respondents on the other hand, but since there is specific suppression of materials facts, no orders can be passed in this Writ Petition.
5.The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The order passed
in this Writ Petition should not have any bearing on any decision taken
3/5
by the learned Sub Judge at Ramanathapuram. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes / No 11.04.2023 Internet :Yes NCC : Yes/No
cmr
To
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The District Revenue Officer-cumDistrict Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District.
4.The Tahsildar, Enmanankondan Village, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District.
4/5
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.225 of 2022
11.04.2023
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be heard on merits despite specific suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
Whether the existence of a pending civil suit and the petitioner's appearance as a defendant bars the High Court from deciding the writ petition.
M.Abdul Malik
District Collector, Ramanathapuram District
District Revenue Officer-cumDistrict Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District
Tahsildar, Enmanankondan Village, Ramanathapuram, Ramnad District
Syed Ibrahim
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
