Madras High Court
T.Anbu Ganesan vs The Special Commissioner And on 3 August, 2021
W.P.No.9357 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P. No.9357 of 2005
and
W.P.M.P. No. 10174 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
T.Anbu Ganesan .... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Ariyalur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ariyalur.
4.Manohar .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records
relating to the proceedings of the first respondent herein dated
27.11.2003 in D.Dis.RP.21/03 (KA/7934/2003) confirming the order of
the second respondent dated 04.02.2002 in Na.Ka.A1.17547/2001 and
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P.No.9357 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
For Petitioner : M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3
: No appearance for R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent
herein dated 27.11.2003 in D.Dis.RP.21/03 (KA/7934/2003) confirming
the order of the second respondent dated 04.02.2002 in
Na.Ka.A1.17547/2001 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner and five others along with the fourth
respondent herein are joint pattadars. As far as, the petitioner share is
concerned, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same by cultivating
banana trees, bamboo trees, tamarind trees and mango trees. There is a
ramp was build in the said land to reach the river and it was being used
by general public to go inside and also other side of the river for public
convenience. While being so, the petitioner sought for sub division of
the land comprised in S.No.225/3 and issuance of separate patta in the
name of the respective owners. The third respondent herein considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9357 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
the request and ordered to sub divide the land without causing
inconvenience to the public using the ramp constructed thereon by the
Public Works Department. However, its was challenged by the fourth
respondent herein before the second respondent and the same was
allowed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also filed a revision
before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed.
3. In the mean while, the petitioner also filed a suit in
O.S.No.120 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur for
injunction restraining the fourth respondent along with others from using
the suit property. The fourth respondent and others filed counter claim
restraining the petitioner from interfering the usage of the suit property
by taking bullock cart and running the tractor in and around the land. The
suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the counter claim of the
fourth respondent herein was allowed by a judgment and decree dated
30.11.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also filed an appeal
suit in A.S.No.16 of 2015 and the same was dismissed, confirming the
order passed by the Court below by Judgment and Decree dated
21.01.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9357 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner undertakes not to interfere with the public using the path way
for going inside and outside of the river. Existing path way requires the
sub division of the suit property. However, a resolution was passed by
the Panchayat objecting the sub division of the property comprised in
Survey No.225/3.
5. The fourth respondent also filed a counter and stating that
there is no guarantee on the side of the petitioner to keep up his
agreement for allowing the public to use the ramp. If a separate patta for
their land is issued by the Revenue Authorities, they would be interested
only in fortifying that patta land and will not care for the public interest.
The ramp was not constructed in the petitioner's land and the same was
constructed in the other joint pattadars.
6. Considering the above, the petitioner is directed to appear
before the third respondent and produce the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.120 of 2000 and A.S.No.16 of 2015. On receipt of the same
the third respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry with counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9357 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
parties by affording an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate
orders and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of production of those judgements.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
03.08.2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Lpp
To
1. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Ariyalur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ariyalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9357 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Lpp
W.P. No.9357 of 2005
and
W.P.M.P. No. 10174 of 2005
and W.V.M.P.No.38 of 2010
03.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
