Dismissed¶36

K.L. Joghee v. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary

Madras HC25 Nov 2025WP/44935/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Mandamus; unauthorised construction; Nanjanadu Village; Udhagamandalam; The Nilgiris; Survey No.578/1; New T.S.No.498; RDO proceedings Na.Ka.A3/571/2025 dated 11.07.2025; O.S.No.113/2025 Subordinate Judge Udhagamandalam; permanent injunction application preserved; O.S.No.89 of 2020 dismissed for default; simultaneous revenue and civil proceedings; Article 226; WP No. 44935 of 2025; W.M.P.No.50119 of 2025; V. Lakshminarayanan J.; Madras High Court; writ dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed; the dismissal does not affect the petitioner's right to obtain appropriate orders in the pending injunction application in O.S.No.113/2025 before the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam. ¶36

K.L. Joghee Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Represented… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondents 3 to 6 to conduct an enquiry and take action against respondent 7 pursuant to the RDO proceedings in Na.Ka.A3/571/2025 dated 11.07.2025, when the same dispute is already pending before the Civil Court in O.S.No.113/2025 at the petitioner's instance.

¶32

Court's answer

Initiation of simultaneous proceedings, that too by a Revenue authority, while the matter is pending before the Civil Court, might not be in the interest of justice or in fact in the interest of the petitioner himself.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter stands seized of by the Civil Court at the petitioner's own instance, the writ petition is dismissed, and the dismissal will not affect the petitioner's right to move and obtain appropriate orders in the application pending for injunction in O.S.No.113/2025 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Udhagamandalam.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus sought under Article 226 directing respondents 3 to 6 (Revenue Divisional Office, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer and Village Panchayat Board Secretary) to conduct an enquiry and take action against respondent 7 over an alleged unauthorised construction on the petitioner's property in Survey No.578/1, New T.S.No.498, Nanjanadu Village, Udhagamandalam, pursuant to RDO proceedings in Na.Ka.A3/571/2025 dated 11.07.2025. The petitioner had earlier moved the RDO, whose order of 11.07.2025 he sought to enforce through the Tahsildar; after that order, on 08.09.2025, he filed O.S.No.113/2025 before the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam claiming declaration of ownership of four cents and permanent injunction against respondent 7. An earlier suit by one Nanjappan (O.S.No.89 of 2020) against respondent 7 for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction had been dismissed for default on the plaintiff's death. Holding that when a matter stands seized of by the Civil Court at the petitioner's own instance, allowing the writ would mean executive authorities dealing with issues before the Civil Court, and that simultaneous proceedings by a Revenue authority during pendency before the Civil Court may not serve the interests of justice or the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ petition, expressly preserving the petitioner's right to obtain appropriate orders in his pending injunction application in O.S.No.113/2025. No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

WP No. 44935 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

WP No. 44935 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.50119 of 2025

¶7

1.K.L. Joghee

¶8

S/o. Kutta Linga Gowder, Door Number 9/40, Nanjanadu Village, Udhagamandalam Taluk, Nillagiri District.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector of Nilagiri District, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Office Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District.

¶15

5.The Block Development Officer Udhagamandalam Panchayat Union, Udhagamandalam, 643001, Nilgiris District.

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 44935 of 2025

¶18

6.The Secretary, Najanadu Village Pachayat Board, Nanjanadu Post, Nilagiri District-643 004.

¶19

7.Bheeman, Son of Bola Nanjan, 11/138, Ammanatty Road, Nanjanadu Post, Nilagiri District-643 004

¶20

Respondent(s)

¶21

PRAYER

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3,4, 5 and 6 to conduct an enquiry and consequently take such action against the Respondent Number 7 herein pursuant to the Proceedings of the 3^rd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udhagamandalam Taluk in proceedings in Na.Ka.A3/571/2025 dated 11.07.2025 and grant such other further relief as may be deemed fit and proper

¶23

by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, award costs.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.V. Ravi Chandran For Respondent: Mr.M.Shajahan Special Government Pleader (For R1 to R6)

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Survey No.578/1, New T.S.No.498 of Nanjanadu Village, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. He alleges that the 7^th respondent is attempting

¶27

to put up an unauthorised construction over the property. The petitioner has

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 44935 of 2025

¶30

already filed a suit in O.S.No.113/2025, seeking a declaration that he is the owner of four cents in the aforesaid property and for permanent injunction restraining the 7^th respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment. Prior to the suit, one Nanjappan, had also presented a suit in O.S.No.89 of 2020 against the 7^th respondent. That was a suit for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction. Due to the death of the plaintiff, Nanjappan, the suit came to be dismissed for default.

¶31

The petitioner moved the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udhagamandalam, against the unauthorised construction by the 7^th respondent, who passed an order on 11.07.2025. The petitioner sought for the fourth respondent to pass a consequential order in terms of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udhagamandalam. I should point out here that, after the order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 11.07.2025, the petitioner has moved the Civil Court on 08.09.2025. When the matter is seized

¶32

by the Civil Court, and that too, at the instance of the petitioner, if I were to give the petitioner what he wants, then it will be as if the executive authorities will deal with the issues, which is currently seized of by the Civil Court.

¶33

In my view, initiation of simultaneous proceedings, that too by a Revenue authority, when the matter is pending before the Civil Court, might not be in the interest of justice, or in fact, in the interest of the petitioner himself.

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 44935 of 2025

¶36

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition will not affect the right of the petitioner to move and obtain appropriate orders in the application pending for injunction in O.S.No.113/2025 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Udhagamandalam.

¶37