Dismissed

Easwaran, v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WP(MD)/20057/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashal of an order and directions to complete enquiry regarding adjudication of cultivating tenant. The case was dismissed because the District Munsif in a suit had found the petitioner is not in possession of the property, leaving nothing for further consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Easwaran, Vs the Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20057 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20057 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16316 of 2017

Easwaran

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶11

2.S.Suruliyammal ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.8571/2017/A5 dated 28.07.2017 quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry for adjudication of cultivating tenant of the petitioner for S.No.639/1 and 649/2 situated in Chinna Vaikkal Ellukadai Division, Chinnamanur Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.20057 of 2017

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For R1 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The above writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 8571/2017/A5 dated 28.07.2017 and to direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry for adjudication of cultivating tenant of the petitioner for S.No.639/1 and 649/2 situated in Chinna Vaikkal Ellukadai Division, Chinnamanur Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶19

It is informed that the second respondent has filed a suit O.S.No.100 of 2017 for an injunction. The defendant therein is the petitioner now before this Court. The first issue, which has been framed in the above suit, is "Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property?" The learned District Munsif has returned the following finding:-

¶20

thjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapYk;> jhth nrhj;jpd; cupik %yk; thjpapd; ngaupy; cs;sij gpujpthjpAk; xg;Gf; nfhz;Ls;s epiyapYk;> cupik

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.20057 of 2017

¶24

%yj;ij njhlu;e;J mDgtKk; thjpapd; trk; cs;sjhfNt mDkhdpf;f Ntz;baJ clg;gbahdjhf cs;sjhy; jhth nrhj;jpd; mDgtKk; KOikahf thjpapd; trk; cs;sjfhNt KbT nra;J mt;thNw 1tJ vOtpdhtpw;F jPpu;T fhzg;gLfpwJ.

¶25

In the light of the above finding that the petitioner is not in possession of the property, nothing survives for further consideration in the above writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Speaking	: Yes / No	21.08.2024
NCC	: Yes / No
Internet	: Yes / No
Index	: Yes / No

¶27

¶28

¶29

The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.20057 of 2017

¶33

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶34

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.20057 of 2017

¶36

21.08.2024

¶37

4/4

¶38

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

Easwaran, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Easwaran, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balakrishnan Vs The District Collector

Kaliraj Vs The Tahsildar

O.Sethuraman Vs the District Collector

Seethalakshmi, Vs the Collector

Mohamed Ibrahim Rahman. S Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Christopher Gonzalvez Vs the District Revenue Officer