Disposed

L.Balaji v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC7 Jun 2024WP/12310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order by the Tahsildar regarding encroachment on government land, holding that the petitioners must avail the statutory appeal remedy under Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act. The court issued notice to official respondents and permitted the petitioners to seek condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to avail statutory appeal remedy under Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983.

L.Balaji Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN

¶7

THILAKAVADI

¶8

W.P.No.12310 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.13411 of 2024 in

¶9

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶10

L.Balaji

¶11

S.Jayakumar 3. R.Kathikeyan

¶12

... petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The State of Tamil Nadu

¶15

Rep. By its Secretary to the Government Revenue Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009

¶16

The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai – 600 005

¶17

The District Collector

¶18

Page Nos.1/9

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶21

Thiruvannamalai District at Thiruvannamalai

¶22

The District Revenue Officer Polur Thiruvannamalai District

¶23

The Tahsildar Polur Thiruvannamalai District

¶24

S.Saravanan ... Respondents

¶25

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relevant to the order in Mu.Mu.Aa.No.15674/2023 dated 11.08.2023 passed by the fifth respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the rule of law and natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to remove the encroachment in government land situated in Survey No.296/2 classified as Kallakuttu Parai at Thindivanam Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District and restore the pathway used by the petitioners for ingress and egress to reach the Athimanur road.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Surya Prakash For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader Assisted by T.K.Saravanan

¶27

Page Nos.2/9

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶30

Government Advocate

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

¶33

This common order will now dispose of the captioned 'Writ Petition'

¶34

['WP' for the sake of brevity] and 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' ['WMP' for the sake of brevity] thereat.

¶35

An 'order dated 11.08.2023 bearing reference

¶36

Mu.Mu.Aa.No.15674/2023 made by R5 (jurisdictional Tahsildar i.e., Tahsildar, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District)' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity] has been called in question.

¶37

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that alleged impediment

¶38

caused by R6 [private respondent] qua using common pathway said to be situate in Government poramboke land has not been considered favourably by R5 vide impugned order.

¶39

Page Nos.3/9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶42

Page Nos.4/9

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶45

A perusal of impugned order brings to light that R5 has proceeded

¶46

on the basis that the 'A' Register does not show any common pathway

¶47

( bghJ ghij). However, learned counsel for writ petitioner contends to the contrary.

¶48

5. The Statute namely 'Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986)' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity] provides for an appeal mechanism and therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the captioned writ petition by ordering notice to the official respondents i.e., R1 to R5.

¶49

6. Issue notice to official respondents.

¶50

7. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader assisted by

¶51

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1 to

¶52

R5. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that impugned order has been made by R5 and that an appeal to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (who has not been arrayed as a party in the writ petition) lies vide under Section 14 of said Act.

¶53

Page Nos.5/9

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶56

8. Considering the nature of the contestation and disputation we are of

¶57

the view that this is a mater where the writ petitioner has to seek appeal remedy under Section 14 of said Act.

¶58

9. There is a time frame of 30 days for preferring the aforementioned appeal. In the case on hand, if the writ petitioner choses to prefer an appeal, it is open to the writ petitioner to seek / plead benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 qua the period of pendency of the captioned writ petition but it is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the plea on its own merits and in accordance with law. If the writ petitioner crosses the delay barrier, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by this order as we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶59

Though obvious, we also make it clear that Appellate Authority shall put R6 on notice, give an opportunity to R6 in accordance with the appeal hearing procedure before deciding the appeal. This is the safety valve we are putting in qua R6 (private respondent) as we are disposing of the

¶60

Page Nos.6/9

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶63

captioned writ petition (main writ petition with consent of both sides considering the narrow scope) with notice to official respondents alone. We also make it clear that all the rights and contentions of R5 are preserved and we have not expressed any view or opinion on the same also.

¶64

Captioned writ petition disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

¶65

Consequently, captioned WMP is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶66

(M.S.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 07.06.2024 (2/2)

¶67

Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No gpa

¶68

Page Nos.7/9

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶71

¶72

The Secretary to the Government Revenue Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009

¶73

The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai – 600 005

¶74

The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District at Thiruvannamalai

¶75

The District Revenue Officer Polur Thiruvannamalai District

¶76

The Tahsildar Polur Thiruvannamalai District

¶77

Page Nos.8/9

¶78

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

¶79

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

¶80

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,

gpa

W.P.No.12310 of 2024

07.06.2024 (2/2)

Page Nos.9/9

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

L.Balaji v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Balaji v. the State of Tamilnadu

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.K.R.Venkatesan Vs M.Selvanambi

D.Prema Vs M/s. Shiva Texyarn Ltd.

Guna Vs J.Durga

P.R.Samabasivam Vs the Principal Secretary

Ramasamy, Vs the District Collector

J.Jothimani Vs the District Collector