Disposed

Kamala Kannan S v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC13 Apr 2023WP(MD)/2798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of W.P(MD)No.2798 and connected miscellaneous petitions after noting that relevant orders were already passed in a separate miscellaneous application, rendering further adjudication unnecessary. The writ petition, filed under Article 226 challenging an enquiry notice, stands closed without adjudication on the merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kamala Kannan S Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2798 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:13.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.2798 of 2023

¶7

and WMP(MD)Nos.2592, 2595, 2600 and 4969 of 2023

¶8

S.Kamala Kannan

¶9

S.Mariammal

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

The Village Administrative Officer, Nalli Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

Venugopal

¶16

V.Rajeswari

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.2798 of 2023

¶22

records pertaining to the impugned recommendation in Na.Ka.no. A5/5216/2022, dated 04.11.2022 on the file of the second respondent and the consequential impugned enquiry notice in Na.Ka.no.A3/7504/2022, dated 03.02.2023, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequentially forbearing the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in S.No. 389/106 in Nalli Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioners :Mr.M.Arjun Varman for Lajapathi Roy & Association

¶24

For R1 to R3 :Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

¶25

For R4, R5 :Mr. Porkkodi Karnan, for M/s. POLAX Legal Solutions

¶26

ORDER

¶27

When the matter was came up for consideration on 14.03.2023,

¶28

this Court had passed the following order:

¶29

“The Writ Petitioner has questioned the enquiry notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 03.02.2023, by which, the Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the petitioners to appear on 10.02.2023 at 02.30 pm. The said notice had been issued to the petitioners herein and also to the Respondents 4 and 5.

¶30

2.All the parties are directed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer. This view is actually based on

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.2798 of 2023

¶34

the order of my predecessor, dated 13.02.2023. In the said order, my predecessor had stated as follows in Paragraph No.3:

¶35

“3. The petitioner challenges the impugned report of the Tahsildar as well as the enquiry notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Challenge to the Tahsildar's report is rejected. This is because, it is only recommendatory in nature and it is not an enforceable order as such. However, the petitioners are very much entitled to question the enquiry notice. Enquiry notice admittedly is anchored entirely on the report prepared by the Tahsildar. The said report appears to have been prepared behind the petitioners back. In such case, when the complaint is received and report is called for, the authority preparing the report is expected to adhere to the principles of natural justice. It is the Tahsildar who conducts field inspection.”

¶36

3.A reading of the above shows that the challenge to the Tahsildar report has been rejected. Once that has been rejected, it means that the report stands. On the basis of that particular Tahsildar's report, the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued the impugned notice. It is for the petitioners to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer and explain the matters. It is only an enquiry. I am confident that the Revenue Divisional Officer would give proper opportunity to

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.2798 of 2023

¶40

all the parties concerned.

¶41

4.Let a fresh notice be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer by indicating a fresh date for appearance of the petitioners and the respondents 4 and 5. 5.To inform this Court about the issuance of that particular fresh notice, list the matter on 21.03.2023. But, it is made clear that the order of interim stay stands vacated. The Revenue Divisional Officer is specifically directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioners and the Respondents 4 and 5.”

¶42

2.Subsequently, today it is represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader that orders have already been passed on 06.04.2023 in Mu.Mu.A3/7502/2022. A copy of the order had been forwarded to the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the same also shows that a copy had also been forwarded to the first petitioner himself S.Kamala Kannan, S/o.Sankarasubburaj.

¶43

3.If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they can take

¶44

up the matter further, in the manner known to law. No further adjudication is required in this matter.

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.2798 of 2023

¶48

4.Even on 14.03.2023, in WMP(MD)No.4969 of 2023 stay was

¶49

vacated by this Court.

¶50

5.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed. No costs.

¶51

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶52

13.04.2023

¶53

NCS :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶54

PNM

¶55

¶56

The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶57

The Tahsildar, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶58

The Village Administrative Officer, Nalli Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶59

5/6

¶60

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

¶61

W.P(MD)No.2798 of 2023

¶62

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶63

PNM

¶64

ORDER IN W.P(MD).No.2798 of 2023 and WMP(MD)Nos.2592, 2595, 2600 and 4969 of 2023

¶65

13.04.2023

¶66

6/6

¶67

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

Kamala Kannan S v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kamala Kannan S v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xavier Peter Thanaraj a Vs the Manapparai Municipality

Ahamed Kabeir.S Vs The Chairman

Jeevanandam .M Vs The District Collector

Periyakka M Vs the Execution Officer

Jalulinnisha M Vs The District Collector

Farook Abdullah Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Registration