Radhamani vs The Estate Officer/Sub Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 10673 Mad

                                                                             C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2190 of 2013

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 26.04.2021

                                                         CORAM

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                             C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2190 of 2013
                                                         and
                                                  M.P. No. 1 of 2013

                Radhamani                                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                           -vs-

                The Estate Officer/Sub Collector,
                Mettur,
                Salem District.                                                         ... Respondent

                Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

                India, 1950, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in C.M.A.

                No. 23 of 2009 dated 11.02.2013 on the file of the III Additional District and

                Sessions Judge, Salem.


                                   For Petitioner     : Mr. S.Doraisamy

                                   For Respondent     : Mr. Y.T.Aravind Gosh,
                                                        Additional Government Pleader (C.S.)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                1/5
                                                                           C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2190 of 2013

                                                       ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated

11.02.2013 in C.M.A. No. 23 of 2009 passed by the III Additional District and

Sessions Court, Salem dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the

order passed by the Estate Officer/Sub Collector, Mettur in Na. Ka. 3783/

2009(B) dated 08.09.2009 to evict the Appellant from the encroached property

as per the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)

Act, 1975.

2. The Learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S.) appearing for the

Respondent would submit that as per Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975, every order made by

an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not

be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings

and in view of the specific bar, the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable.

3. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit

that the Petitioner had filed the Civil Revision Petition under the bonafide

belief that it is maintainable under law. He would further submit that there is no

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

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2190 of 2013

malafides intention on the part of the Petitioner to file the revision and prolong

the case and it is only a genuine mistake. However, he would further submit

that liberty may be granted to the Petitioner to withdraw the Civil Revision

Petition and file appropriate Writ Petition before this Court. He would further

submit that the Petitioner had been earnestly proceeding with this case and the

bonafides of the Petitioner may be duly considered by this Court for condoning

the delay. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India P.Sarathy

vs. Tate Bank of India reported in AIR 2000 SC 2023 and M/s. Consolidate

Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department

reported in (2008) 7 SCC 169.

4. The Learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S.) appearing for the

Respondent would submit that it is for the concerned Writ Court to take into

consideration the delay and the concerned Writ Court has to condone the delay

in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to withdraw

the Civil Revision Petition. It is open to the concerned Writ Court to decide the

issue regarding limitation on its own merits in accordance with law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2190 of 2013

6. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as

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

costs.

26.04.2021 vjt

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

Note: Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the Petitioner under written acknowledgement after retaining a copy of the same for record.

To

1. The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.

2. The Estate Officer/Sub Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

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

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2190 of 2013

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

vjt

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2190 of 2013

26.04.2021

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