Dismissed

J.Ganessin, v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Jan 2024WP/4547/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revenue inquiry order on his land-grabbing complaint. The court held civil title disputes cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and revenue authorities are incompetent to determine title; petitioner was relegated to the competent Civil Court and the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to establish property rights before the competent Civil Court; connected miscellaneous petitions ordered.

J.Ganessin, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4547 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.4547 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.6619 of 2018

J.Ganessin

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, New Collectorate Building, Pettaiyan Chattiram, Pondicherry.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Puducherry-13.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining the order N.7923/ DC(R) N/PGR CELL/ 15-16 dated 16.12.2016 made by 2^nd Respondent and to quash the same.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.No.4547 of 2018

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ganessin ( Party in person) For Respondent : Mr.A.Tamilvanan Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The order impugned passed by the Inquiry Officer, Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Pondicherry, dated 16.12.2012 is sought to be quashed in the present writ proceedings.

¶21

Perusal of the facts would reveal that the allegation of land grabbing has been raised by the petitioner against some private parties. In other words, the petitioner states that the land belongs to him was grabbed by some other persons. Such disputes of civil nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings.

¶22

The Revenue Authorities are incompetent to determine the title, which is to be done based on the documents and evidence as available on record by approaching the competent Civil Court of law. Thus, the respondents has rightly relegated the petitioner to approach the competent

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

W.P.No.4547 of 2018

¶26

Civil Court of law for the purpose of establishing his property right.

¶27

With these liberties, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶28

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is ordered.

¶29

04.01.2024

¶30

Index : Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes (sha) To

¶31

The District Collector, New Collectorate Building, Pettaiyan Chattiram, Pondicherry.

¶32

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Puducherry-13.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.4547 of 2018

¶36

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,

(sha)

W.P.No.4547 of 2018

04.01.2024

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

¶41

4/4

J.Ganessin, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ganessin, v. The District Collector

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

Purasawalkam Santhatha Vs the Union of Indi, Rep. by Its

Zahiruddin Mohammed Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V.Aravind Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Er. U.R. Srirangarajan, Vs the Chairman

Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd., Rep Vs the Chief Director (Sugar)

S.Shankarbabu Vs State of Tamil Nadu