Madras High Court
M.Balasubramanian vs The District Collector on 24 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.363 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.363 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.1286 and 1287 of 2021
M.Balasubramanian : Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate Building,
Madurai 625 001.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
District Revenue Office,
Madurai District,
Gandhi Nagar, Madurai 625 020.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Madurai District,
Madurai 625 020.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madurai South,
Arignar Anna Nagar,
Madurai 625 020.
5.Dharsana Nayan Thakkar : Respondent
1/4
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.363 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the
order dated 27.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.18096 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant \ being the writ petitioner
against the order of the learned Single Judge, who while declining to interfere with
the order impugned challenged by the appellants, gave liberty to the appellant /
petitioner to file a civil suit.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the report of the
Tahsildar, dated 30.07.2013 would state that fraud has been committed by various
persons including the private respondent. The official respondent, who passed the
impugned order, has taken into consideration of documents behind the back of the
appellant.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.363 of 2021
3.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that
the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference, as the only
way the appellant can agitate is by filing a civil suit.
4.There is already a suit filed by the appellant against the private respondent
pending consideration in O.S.No.115 of 2011 before the District Munsif, Madurai
and the learned Single Judge has given liberty to amend the suit for declaration
and for consequential relief. The aforesaid reason of the learned Single Judge
requires to be confirmed. A patta is not a document of title. Even otherwise,
against the order passed by the revenue authorities, the remedy is only to file a
civil suit as already held by this Court. In such of the matter, the learned Single
Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that the appellant having
persuaded his remedy before the revenue officials and before this Court, he is
entitled to file application seeking to implead the official respondents along with
the prayer for declaration and with the instant prayer, as we give liberty to the
appellant to file such application within a period of six weeks to eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The trial Court shall consider the
aforesaid application in the light of the observation made by the learned Single
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.363 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
rmk
Judge and as in the present judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No [M.M.S.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
Internet : Yes 24.02.2021
rmk
To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate Building,
Madurai 625 001.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
District Revenue Office,
Madurai District,
Gandhi Nagar, Madurai 625 020.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Madurai District,
Madurai 625 020.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madurai South,
Arignar Anna Nagar,
Madurai 625 020.
W.A.(MD)No.363 of 2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
