Madras High Court
S.Mani @ Subramani vs The District Revenue Officer on 4 February, 2021
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
S.Mani @ Subramani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Special Deputy Collector Cum
Revenue Court,
Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar Cud Record Officer,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
4.P.Perumal
5.Murugambal ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings
Ref. No-See.Ma.E4/1/2020 dated 15.11.2010 and quash the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Mr.V.Balaji
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel
For Mr.R.Manimaran for R4 & R5.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special
Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned senior counsel
for the contesting private respondents.
2.The petitioner herein filed a petition under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969.
The case of the petitioner was that since his father's days, he has been
expending his physical labour and cultivating the lands in question and that his
name should be entered as a cultivating tenant in the relevant records. The
prayer was hotly contested by the private respondents herein, who had
purchased the lands from the previous owner vide registered sale deeds. To be
fair to the petitioner, he did not question the title of the private respondents
herein. All that he contended was that he was cultivating the land in question.
The petition was dismissed by the Tahsildar Cum Record Officer vide order
dated 06.05.2008. The third respondent gave a finding that the petitioner had
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
not produced any material in support of his claim. It was further noted that
even though a number of survey numbers had been included in Form-V, the
private respondents were only concerned with some of the items and not all the
items. Challenging the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner filed
an appeal before the Special Deputy Collector Cum Revenue Court. The
appellate authority reversed the decision of the original authority and directed
to enter the name of the petitioner in the record as a cultivating tenant. The
private respondents moved a revision before the first respondent, who restored
the order passed by the original authority. It is this, that is under challenge at
the instance of the applicant in this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set
out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and wanted this Court to
set aside the impugned and restore the order passed by the first appellate
authority.
4.Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the private
respondents would contend that the writ petition will have to be dismissed not
only on merits but also in view of certain subsequent developments.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents has
drawn my attention to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.285 of 2007
by the Principal District Munisf Court, Tirunelveli on 10.07.2013. That was a
suit filed by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of injunction restraining the
private respondents from dispossessing him except in the manner known to law.
Before the Trial Court, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and he also
examined three other witnesses. On the side of the private respondents herein,
one Paramasivam was examined as D.W.1. On the side of the petitioner, Exs.P1
to P8 were marked. On the side of the private respondents Exs.B1 to B34 were
marked. After a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, the Trial
Court even while dismissing the suit had given a categorical finding that the
petitioner herein has not established his claim of possession and enjoyment
over the suit lands. This judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was
affirmed in A.S.No.92 of 2013, dated 21.08.2014, on the file of Additional Sub
Court, Tirunelveli. As on date, the judgment and decree holds good and it has
not been challenged. Therefore, the petitioner herein is squarely bound by the
aforesaid findings of the jurisdictional Civil Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
6.That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the
private respondents, even before the revenue authorities, the petitioner did not
adduce any evidence. The petitioner who wanted to record his name as
cultivating tenant ought to have stepped into the witness box and established
his case. He did not do so. Instead some documents said to have been issued by
the local Village Administrative Officer were marked. It has subsequently
turned out that those documents are not genuine.
7.Be that as it may, the failure on the part of the petitioner to adduce
evidence before the revenue authorities is sufficient to disentitle the petitioner
to any relief. The order passed by the first respondent is well founded and it
calls for no interference. In any event, in view of the subsequent judgment
passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court, I am of the view that the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
To:
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Special Deputy Collector Cum
Revenue Court,
Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar Cud Record Officer,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
W.P(MD)No.23 of 2011
04.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
