Madras High Court
S.Arumugasamy vs The District Collector on 28 July, 2021
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.11435 to 11437 of 2021
S.Arumugasamy .. Appellant
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram,
Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Peerkankaranai Police Station,
Chennai.
6.C.M.Raju .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 01.10.2019 made in W.P.No.4546 of 2013.
Page 1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.A.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J Raja Singh
Government Counsel for R1 to R5
Mr.K.Nirmal Kumar for R6
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned
single Judge, who while declining to interfere with the order passed
by the Revenue Divisional officer, has observed that it is open to the
parties to approach the revenue authorities after the disposal of the
pending suits.
2.It is an admitted fact that two suits are pending consideration
with respect to the same property. One is filed by the appellant for
bare injunction and the other is filed by the sixth respondent for
declaration and injunction.
3.Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
we are of the view that the order passed by the learned single Judge
requires no interference except observing that Civil Courts are
expected to decide the matter on their own merits without being
influenced either by the order passed by the learned single Judge or
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It appears that
the suit for injunction filed by the appellant in O.S.No.63 of 2008 is
based upon title. The other suit filed by the sixth respondent is one
for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.119 of 2013.
Therefore, the aforesaid two suits are to be decided on the basis of
the evidence placed before the Court both oral and documentary.
4.Thus, the writ appeal stands disposed of with the observation
that the Civil Court is expected to dispose of the suits on their own
merits without being influenced by the order passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer cancelling the patta, which stood in the name of the
appellant. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
5.Taking into consideration the fact that O.S.No.63 of 2008 is
pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, for more
than a decade and O.S.No.119 of 2013 is pending on the file of the
Principal District Court, Chengalpattu for about 8 years, we direct
that the suit in O.S.No.63 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Tambaram be transferred and tried along with O.S.No.119 of
2013 pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
The learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu is directed to
dispose of both the suits in O.S.Nos.63 of 2008 and 119 of 2013
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
28.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The District Munsif, Tambaram.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Chengalpattu.
3.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai.
6.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram,
Chennai.
7.The Inspector of Police,
Peerkankaranai Police Station,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.1819 of 2021
28.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
