Disposed¶35

P.Jayakrishnan, v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC10 Mar 2025WP/21834/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari refused; writ petition disposed. Subsequent purchaser; lessee/cultivating tenant right of possession and enjoyment not a subject matter of writ jurisdiction; petitioner not a party to impugned revenue proceedings; civil disputes pending between original owner and lessees; proceedings of District Revenue Officer dated 19.07.2001 in D.R.No.3/2000 E2 upheld; Article 226 Constitution of India; remedy left open before appropriate forum; Madras High Court, N. Anand Venkatesh J., 10.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief; certiorari refused and the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.07.2001 left undisturbed; petitioner left free to pursue independent remedies before the appropriate forum. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs. ¶35

P.Jayakrishnan, Vs The District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should be issued to call for the records of, and quash as illegal and unsustainable, the order dated 19.07.2001 made in D.R.No.3/2000 E2 by the 1st respondent (District Revenue Officer). +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.07.2001; the petitioner was admittedly not even a party to those proceedings.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The right of the lessee to continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be a subject matter of a writ petition.

¶32

Key takeaways

If the petitioner has any other independent right, it is left open to him to work out the remedy in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), order dated 10.03.2025, disposed of W.P.No.21834 of 2014 (with M.P.No.2 of 2014), filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer (1st respondent) dated 19.07.2001 made in D.R.No.3/2000 E2. The petitioner was an admitted subsequent purchaser who had bought the subject property together with pending litigation between the original owner and lessees claiming as cultivating tenants, and was admittedly not a party to the impugned proceedings. The Court held that the right of the lessee to continue in possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be a subject matter of a writ petition, found no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings, and left the petitioner to work out any independent remedy before the appropriate forum. Writ petition disposed of accordingly; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.21834 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.21834 of 2014 and M.P.No.2 of 2014

P.Jayakrishnan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer and Administrative Judge, Coimbatore District.

¶11

2.Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Salem – 7.

¶12

3.Registrar of Land lease, Thasildhar Court, Coimbatore [South] taluk, Coimbatore.

¶13

4.C.K.Rajagopal

¶14

5.Srinivasan Saraswathi

¶15

6.Alamelu

¶16

7.R.Gopal

¶17

8.R.Shanmugam

¶18

9.R.Lakshmi

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

1/4

W.P.No.21834 of 2014

Prayer

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records related to the order dated 19.07.2001 made in D.R.No.3/2000 E2, by the 1^st respondent and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamurthy For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.M.R.GokulKrishnan Additional Government Pleader

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 19.07.2001.

¶28

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

¶29

3.The petitioner is admittedly a subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The actual dispute was between the original owner and the lessees, who were claiming right as a cultivating tenant in the property. Admittedly, there are civil disputes that are pending between the parties. The petitioner while purchasing the property, has also purchased a litigation. The right of the lessee to continue to be in

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶31

W.P.No.21834 of 2014

¶32

possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be a subject matter of a writ petition. The authorities have considered the same and admittedly, the petitioner was not even a party in this proceedings.

¶33

4.In view of the above, this Court does not find any grounds to

¶34

interfere with the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 19.07.2001. If at all the petitioner has any other independent right, it is left open to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum.

¶35

5.In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶36

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶37

10.03.2025

¶38

krk

¶39

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4