Madras High Court
S.Balraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 November, 2021
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.Nos.1995,2023,2028,2030,2025,2029,1996,2004,2009,2011,
2020,2021,2027 and 2001 of 2021
W.A.No.1995 of 2021
S.Balraj .. Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Salem District, Salem,
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Athur Division, Athur,
Salem District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Gangavalli Taluk,
Gangavalli, Salem District.
7.S.Seethammal .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
Prayer in W.A.No.1995 of 2021: Appeal preferred under Clause
15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 16.04.2018 made in
W.P.No.1859 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Baskaran
(in all cases)
For Respondents : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R6
Mr.A.V.Arun for R7
(in all cases)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
This group of appeals are filed challenging the common order
passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2018 recorded on
group of petitions being W.P.Nos. 18165 to 18177 of 2013 and
W.P.No. 1859 of 2017.
2. The writ petitions were challenging the orders by the State
Authorities pertaining to grant of patta. These petitions are allowed
by the impugned order. In substance, the order passed by State
Authorities are set aside. These appeals are not by State. It is filed
by the original seventh respondent. The learned Single Judge while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
allowing writ petitions inter alia recorded in paras 5 and 6 thereof
that the seventh respondent had suppressed the filing of suit by him
against the one Guruswamy who had filed Writ Petition No. 21050
of 2001, which is part in this group.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
orders passed by the State Authorities impugned in the writ
petitions could not be said to be illegal in any manner and therefore,
no interference should have been made by learned Single Judge. It
is submitted that, writ petitioners were not entitled to any relief,
and the petitions could not have been allowed. It is submitted that
these appeals be entertained.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the
State is also in the process of filing appeals. He therefore states that
the State does not support the impugned order.
5. Learned advocate for the original writ petitioners has
submitted that, the very foundation of the proceedings against the
writ petitioners was the direction of the Division Bench of this Court
in writ petition (PIL) instituted by the present appellant, which in
effect, was not public interest litigation but private interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
litigation, since that writ petitioner was already plaintiff in the civil
suit against one of the petitioners and having failed before the Civil
Court, he had resorted to writ remedy before this Court suppressing
the fact of earlier round of litigation before the Civil Court. It is
submitted that this was an abuse of process of law by the original
seventh respondent, which ultimately culminated in the proceedings
and, therefore, these appeals be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this Court
finds as under:
6.1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order read as
under:-
“5. It is to be noted that the seventh
respondent suppressing the suit filed against
the said Guruswamy filed a Writ Petition
W.P.No.21050 of 2001 for issuance of Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to
consider his representation dated 23.07.2001.
It was alleged in the affidavit filed in support of
the Writ Petition that he was a small farmer and
also having cattles. Approximately about 75
acres of Government poramboke land in his
Village was used as a Gracing Land for cattles
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
and in the year 1980, the Government had
assigned the lands in favour of the members of
Anna Sumai Thookum Thozhilalar Sangam,
however, subsequently, the assignees have
sold the land to the third parties without the
permission of the Government. Neither the
assignees nor the purchasers were made as
respondents in the Writ Petition. The Division
Bench of this Court on 06.11.2001 disposed of
the Writ Petition directing the respondents to
deal with the representation of the petitioner on
merits and in accordance with law.
6. The seventh respondent filed another
Writ Petition in W.P.No.33504 of 2002 seeking
direction to the respondents to expedite the
proceeding for cancellation of assignments. In
the second Writ Petition also necessary parties
were not impleaded. The another Division
Bench of this Court on 31.01.2018 disposed of
the Writ Petition directing the respondents, to
pass final orders within a period of three
months. Alleging that the respondents have
not complied with the directions, the seventh
respondent filed a Contempt Petition in
Cont.Petition No.829 of 2010. After initiation of
Contempt Proceedings, the fourth respondent
cancelled the assignment on the only ground
that the lands were sold without permission
from the authorities.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
6.2. The present appeals are by the said plaintiff in O.S.No.83
of 1999 before the District Munsif Court, Attur against
Mr.Guruswamy, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.18171 of 2013.
6.3. We find that the unsuccessful litigant before the Civil
Court cannot be encouraged by this Court in writ jurisdiction, more
particularly, in Public Interest Litigation. Since this fact was not
placed on record, directions were given, which ultimately led to the
orders, which was impugned in the writ petitions.
6.4. The sustainability of these orders or the order passed by
learned Single Judge, which is subject-matter of these appeals, can
be examined independently but so far as the present appellant is
concerned, no interference is required in the order of learned Single
Judge, at least, at the hands of the present appellant, who had
approached this Court with the suppression of material fact.
6.5. For this reason, we dismiss these appeals. We are not
interfering with the order of learned Single Judge at the hands of
original seventh respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
6.6. The dismissal of these appeals is not to mean
confirmation of the order of learned Single Judge and in the event
any challenge is made by the State Authorities, the sustainability of
the impugned order will be examined on its own merits.
7. Appeals are disposed of with above clarifications. No costs.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
15.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
ssm/16
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Salem District, Salem,
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Athur Division, Athur,
Salem District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Gangavalli Taluk,
Gangavalli, Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1995 of 2021 etc.,
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
ssm
W.A.Nos.1995,2023,2028,2030,
2025,2029,1996,2004,2009,2011,
2020,2021,2027 and 2001 of 2021
15.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
