Disposed

Dayalan Rajes v. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/

Madras HC4 Jul 2024CRL RC/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. over disputed estate land following an alleged oral partition. On consent of both sides, the court declined to interfere and directed the parties to apply before the Taluk Surveyor for measurement based on title deeds.

What did the court decide?

Directions to file applications before the Taluk Surveyor with title deeds; survey and orders by Taluk Surveyor with Tahsildar within two weeks thereafter.

Dayalan Rajes Vs the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/ — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶7

1.Dayalan Rajes

¶8

2.Lakshmi Dayalan

3.Thangam Dayalan

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem.

¶13

2.Shiv Dayalan

¶14

3.The Tahsildar, Yercaud Taluk office, Yercaud, Salem.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and set aside the order of the 1^st respondent passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka.No.6563/2023/A2 dated 18.11.2023.

¶17

Page No.1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶21

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) [R1]

¶22

Mr.D.Shivakumaran [R2]

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of the 1^st respondent passed u/s 145 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka.No.6563/2023/A2 dated 18.11.2023.

¶26

2. The case of the petitioners is that, the 1 st petitioner and the 2 nd

¶27

respondent are the owners of the property to the extent of 91.18 acres of ''Hemalands estate'' and the 1 st petitioner claims that there was an oral partition in between the 1 st petitioner and the 2 nd respondent on 01.03.1990 in the said 91.18 acres and as per the said oral partition, S.Nos.32/1A, 3/1, 3/2, 4/1, 4/2, 32/5, 32/2, 32/9, 32/10, 33 totalling an

¶28

extent of 45.17 acres stood fallen to the share of the 1 st petitioner while S.Nos.2/4, 23/1A, 5, 10/1, 10/2, 24/1, 24/5A totalling an extent of 48.73

¶29

Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶31

acres had fallen to the share of the 2 nd respondent. Based on the said oral partition, the 1 st petitioner decided to measure the property, which was objected by the 2 nd respondent, thereby they landed before the 1 st respondent and the 1 st respondent passed an order u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. directing the parties to workout their remedy before the civil court. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this court.

¶32

3. Though very many grounds have been raised by the petitioner against the order impugned, however, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, without going into the merits of the case, this Court may permit the 1 st petitioner and the 2 nd respondent to file separate application along with original registered title deed for surveying the property before the Taluk Surveyor and if such application is filed before the Taluk Surveyor, the Taluk Surveyor may be directed to measure the property in the presence of the 1 st petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent.

¶33

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent has no

¶34

Page No.3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶37

objection for the said being passed.

¶38

5. In view of the consent view expressed by the learned counsel

¶39

for the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent, without interfering with the order impugned, this court is inclined to dispose of this revision with the following order :-

¶40

(i) the 1 st petitioner and the 2 nd respondent is directed to file separate application along with necessary fees in terms of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and original registered title deeds before the Taluk Surveyor, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ;

¶41

(ii) if such application is filed, the Taluk Surveyor with the help of Tahsildar is directed to measure the property based on the original registered title deeds and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶42

6. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is

disposed of.

04.07.2024

Index : Yes / No

Speaking order / Non-speaking order

¶47

Page No.4 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶50

Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sp

¶51

¶52

1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem.

¶53

2.The Tahsildar, Yercaud Taluk office, Yercaud, Salem.

¶54

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶55

Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶57

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶58

¶59

Crl.R.C.No.132 of 2024

¶60

04.07.2024

¶61

Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dayalan Rajes v. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayalan Rajes v. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/

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

Y.Niyamathullah Vs Ishrthunissa

Surendra Sing Vs The State Rep by

Madana Singh Vs State Rep.by

S.Senthilnathan Vs B.Subashini

P.N.Peruvazhuthi Vs P.Velayutham

M/S.Sree Guruvayurappan Chit Funds (P) Ltd. Vs Kanagaraj