Idhurus Vs K.M.Jainulabdeen — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Idhurus Vs K.M.Jainulabdeen — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 24.04.2024 in W.P.No.11123 of 2024 set aside; writ appeal allowed with no costs; parties relegated to the competent civil court; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.25012 of 2024) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions to dispose of representations relating to civil disputes serve the cause of justice, i.e., whether the High Court should encourage writ petitions seeking disposal of representations when the grievances relate to civil rights. +2 more

Court's answer

A direction to dispose of a representation relating to civil disputes would do no service to the cause of justice; litigants will be back again, and therefore the High Court need not encourage such writ petitions seeking a direction to dispose of representations when the grievances relate to civil rights.

Ratio / Principle

The issues between the appellant and the first respondent are of civil nature and the writ court cannot adjudicate the disputed facts; the parties are relegated to approach the competent civil court for resolving the disputes and crystallizing their civil rights.

Key takeaways

In view of the above observations, the impugned writ order in W.P.No.11123 of 2024 dated 24.04.2024 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed, with no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Judgment of the Court delivered by S.M. Subramaniam, J.; Bench: S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar, JJ.) allowed W.A.No.3239 of 2024 and set aside the order dated 24.04.2024 in W.P.No.11123 of 2024, by which the first respondent's writ of mandamus seeking disposal of his representation dated 10.07.2023 (for survey of private land in Survey Nos.182/1B1 - 13.50 ares and 182/1B2 - 69.00 ares, patta no.237, Panaiyur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District) had been entertained. Held: (i) a direction to dispose of a representation relating to civil disputes does no service to the cause of justice and the High Court need not encourage such writ petitions where grievances relate to civil rights; (ii) the disputes between the parties being of a civil nature, the writ court cannot adjudicate disputed facts, and the parties were relegated to the competent civil court. Context: the first respondent's earlier Crl.OP.No.18500 of 2024 seeking police protection was dismissed as the patta in his name stood cancelled. Connected CMP.No.25012 of 2024 closed; no costs.

WA.No.3239 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

WA.No.3239 of 2024 and

CMP.No.25012 of 2024

Idhurus

... Appellant

Vs.

K.M.Jainulabdeen

The Tahsildar, Cheyyar Taluk, Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 24.04.2024 in W.P.No.11123 of 2024.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Sriram For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan for R2 : R1 - No appearance

Page 1 of 5

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

WA.No.3239 of 2024

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

Under assail is the order dated 24.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.11123 of

The first respondent / Mr.K.M.Jainulabdeen filed a writ of

mandamus to direct the respondent therein to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2023, seeking to survey the property situated at Panaiyur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District in Survey No.182/1B1 admeasuring to an extent of 13.50 ares and property in Survey No.182/1B2 admeasuring to an extent of 69.00 ares comprised in patta no.237.

Admittedly, the subject property is a private property. Land

dispute exist between the appellant and the first respondent. The first respondent instead of resolving the issues through competent civil Court of law, filed a writ petition seeking a simple direction to dispose of the representation.

Page 2 of 5

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

WA.No.3239 of 2024

Direction to dispose of the representation relating to civil disputes would do no service to the cause of justice. The litigants will be back again and therefore, High Court need not encourage such writ petitions filed seeking a direction to dispose of the representation, when the grievances are relating to civil rights.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent once again filed Crl.OP.No.18500 of 2024, seeking police protection which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that Patta stood in the name of the first respondent was canceled.

All the more, it reveals that the issues between the appellant and the first respondent are of civil nature and the writ Court cannot adjudicate the disputed facts. Thus the parties are relegated to approach the competent civil Court for the purpose of resolving the disputes and to crystallize their civil rights.

In view of the above observations, the impugned writ order in W.P.No.11123 of 2024 dated 24.04.2024 is set aside and the Writ Appeal

Page 3 of 5

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

WA.No.3239 of 2024

closed.

stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[S.M.S,J.] [K.R.S,J.] 17.04.2025

veda Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

To The Tahsildar, Cheyyar Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

Page 4 of 5

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

WA.No.3239 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.

veda

WA.No.3239 of 2024

17.04.2025

Page 5 of 5

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