Petitioner challenged an appellate authority order regarding a surrender document dispute via Article 226 petition. The court held it cannot adjudicate disputed facts and directed the petitioner to avail alternative remedy before the District Revenue Officer, dismissing the petition with liberty to apply for revision.
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.
W.P.No.13308 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
W.P No.13308 of 2021
and
WMP.No.14134 of 2021
G.M.Balachandran ...Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the reord relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Ku.Uo.Pa.Me.Mu case
W.P.No.13308 of 2021
No.05/2013 dated 29.06.2020 and the consequential order of the fourth respondent in Mu.Mu.2440/2020/Aa2 dated 21.10.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as a lessee.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokiamaniraj
For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Balamurugan, Government Advocate For R5 : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
O R D E R
The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act. Against the impugned order, the petitioner has got revisional remedy before the District Revenue Officer. The impugned order would suggest that the dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to the validity of surrender document executed by one Madasamy in favour of the sixth respondent. The writ Court can not go into the disputed question of facts. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to avail alternative remedy before District Revenue Officer.
2/4
W.P.No.13308 of 2021
to file a revision before the District Revenue Officer. The petitioner is entitled
to exclude the time taken by him in prosecuting the writ petition before this Court (i.e. 20.02.2021 to date of receipt of copy of this order). No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.11.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
av
To
3/4
W.P.No.13308 of 2021
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
av
W.P No.13308 of 2021
05.11.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can entertain the writ petition when a factum-surrender dispute is involved and an alternative remedy is available.
G.M.Balachandran
The District Collector
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Special Deputy Collector cum Lease rights appellate officer
The Registration officer cum the Tahsiladar
Mr. Ramachandran
S. SOUNTHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
