Madras High Court
Sivaji vs S.Paramasivam ... 1St on 18 January, 2021
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2017
and
W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.903 to 905 of 2017
1.W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017:-
Sivaji ... Appellant / 3rd Party
Vs.
1.S.Paramasivam ... 1st Respondent / Writ Petitioner
2.The District Collector,
Theni District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Bodinayakkanur Taluk,
Theni District.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Endowment Board,
Dindigul. ... Respondents 2 to 5 / Respondents 1 to 4
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 11.04.2016 made in W.P(MD)No.13385 of 2015
on the file of this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.A.Rahul
For R – 1 : Mr.K.Dinesh
For RR 2 to 5 : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
Special Government Pleader
2.W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017:-
Sivaji ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner & Director of Land Survey
and Settlement,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Theni District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Bodinayakkanur Taluk,
Theni District.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Endowment Board,
Dindigul.
6.S.Paramasivam ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.5634/2013/A6,
dated 29.12.2016 passed by the fourth respondent, quash the same
and consequently, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the
petitioner's appeal dated 26.11.2016 within the time stipulated by this
Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For RR 1 to 5 : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For R – 6 : Mr.K.Dinesh
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 is directed against the order
dated 11.04.2016 passed in W.P(MD)No.13385 of 2015.
2.W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017 is filed seeking to quash the
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.5634/2013/A6, dated 29.12.2016 passed
by the fourth respondent and consequently, to direct the first
respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 26.11.2016.
3.The writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017 and the
appellant in W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 are one and the same persons.
4.According to the petitioner, the property in Survey Nos.217/1
and 217/2 situate in B.Meenakshipuram Village, Bodinayakanur Taluk,
Theni District, belongs to his family, wherein a Well is also situate. It is
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
stated that during the course of changing the revenue registers from
manual to typed one, the entries in the manual settlement register
were changed by the respondents, who are the officials, without due
notice to the family members of the petitioner and classified as
'Anatheenam' etc. Though they have been classified as 'Anatheenam,
Tharisu, Poramboke' etc., the petitioner's family had been in
enjoyment of the above said Survey Nos.217/1 and 217/2. A
representation also has been given by the petitioner to change and
restore the original entries made in the manual settlement register.
5.While so, one Paramasivam, who is the first respondent in the
Writ Appeal and the sixth respondent in the Writ Petition, had filed a
Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.13385 of 2015 on the file of this Court
seeking a Mandamus, directing the Tahsildar, Bodinayakanur, to allot a
pathway to the Temple through the land which belongs to the
petitioner in Survey No.217/1. While obtaining the order, the said
Paramasivam, did not implead the petitioner herein as a party to the
Writ Petition. Since it was a Mandamus that was sought for to consider
the representation, a direction was issued by this Court on 11.04.2016
to the third respondent / the Tahsildar to consider the
recommendation of the fourth respondent, dated 04.05.2015 and pass
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated
13.04.2016 on merits and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said
direction, the present impugned order dated 29.12.2016 was passed
by the Tahsildar, Bodinayakanur, who is the fourth respondent in the
writ petition, permitting the first respondent-Paramasivam to
temporarily use the pathway measuring 3 meters in breadth to go to
the said Temple. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar,
W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017 has been filed and aggrieved by the order
passed in W.P(MD)No.13385 of 2015, the Writ Appeal is preferred by
the appellant as a third party.
6.It is now stated that in the Writ Appeal an order of status quo
was also obtained on 23.02.2017. Therefore, after the order passed
by the fourth respondent / Thasildar on 29.12.2016, nothing has
happened.
7.When the above matters were taken up for hearing today, it is
represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that a
comprehensive suit, to go into the title of the parties and their
entitlement, was filed in O.S.No.313 of 2017 by the appellant before
the Sub-Court, Theni and it is posted for hearing on 25.01.2021. The
first respondent-Paramasivam is also a party therein. Therefore, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
learned counsel appearing for both the parties represented that since
a comprehensive suit is pending and ripe for trial, their remedies can
be worked out in the pending suit, which can go into the factual details
and decide the claim of the parties.
8.Recording the same, the parties are directed to work out their
remedies in the suit which is pending, as mentioned earlier. Since the
order of the Tahsildar is not acted upon till today, till the disposal of
the suit status quo will continue. The learned Subordinate Judge,
Theni is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.313 of 2017 as
expeditiously as possible.
9.With the above directions, the Writ Appeal and the Writ
Petition are disposed of. No costs. consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
18.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
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.A(MD)No.143 of 2017 and W.P(MD)No.1065 of 2017
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
To
1.The Commissioner & Director of Land Survey
and Settlement,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Theni District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Bodinayakkanur Taluk,
Theni District.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Endowment Board,
Dindigul.
W.A(MD)No.143 of 2017
18.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
