Madras High Court
Ramasamy Gounder vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 24 November, 2021
W.P.No.32219 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 24.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.32219 of 2016 and
W.M.P.No.27936 of 2016
1.Ramasamy Gounder
2.Krishnamurthy
3.Santhamani .. Petitioners
..Vs..
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.Kaliappan
3.Saraswathy
4.Kuppusamy .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st Respondent herein
from conducting the enquiry in Na.Ka.No.3920/2015/A4 dated 24.02.2016
in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.28 of 1996 on the file
of the District Munsiff Court, Avinashi, and pending Regular Appeal in
A.S.No.45 of 2015 on the file of Sub Court, Avinashi.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr. C.Jayaprakash (for R1)
Government Advocate
Mr.E.K.Kumaresan (for R2)
O R D E R
The writ of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from
conducting the enquiry in Na.Ka.No.3920/2015/A4 dated 24.02.2016 in
view of the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.28 of 1996, is the relief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32219 of 2016
sought for in the present writ petition.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 15.11.2021, this Court
passed an order directing the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer
to verify the Government Revenue Records and submit a report on
22.11.2021.
3.The learned Government Advocate was also directed to inform the
order to the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer over phone.
Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur filed a report on
23.11.2021.
4.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.11.2021, the
learned counsel for the petitioners made an endorsement to withdraw the
writ petition on the case bundle. In view of the order of this Court on
15.11.2021, again the matter is taken up for hearing on 24.11.2021.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners states that on instructions he
has made an endorsement to withdraw the writ petition. However, it is
brought to the notice of this Court through the report submitted by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur that the petitioners are the owners of
the property and the first petitioner died during the pendency of the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32219 of 2016
petition.
6.The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer states that as per the
revenue records, the subject property is classified as 'Vandi Pathai'.
However, the suit instituted ended in favour of the petitioners and the
defendants filed Appeal Suit in A.S.No.45 of 2015, which is pending.
7.No doubt, regarding the title or otherwise, the Civil Court is
competent to decide the issues. As far as the revenue records are concerned,
undoubtedly the revenue authorities are competent to decide the disputes.
However, in the present case, the issue raised in the subject property is
being used as a Street by a public at large.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are
the absolute owners and there was an error in the revenue records. Per
contra, the Revenue Divisional Officer said that it is classified as 'Vandi
Pathai' meant for the usage of public at large.
9.This Court need not go into the civil rights of the properties in
respect of the ownership or title. As far as the Vandi Pathai is concerned,
once it is a public road and the general public are using the Vandi Pathai for
reaching a main road or otherwise, then such Vandi Pathai must be made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32219 of 2016
available for the usage of the public, even if such property belongs to an
individual person. The legal proposition in this regard is laid down by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.Jagadesh vs.
Tahsildar, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District and another in
W.P.No.27153 of 2016, dated 25.01.2018. Therefore, whether the Civil
Court or the Revenue Divisional Officer or any other revenue authorities are
bound by the judgment of this Court and whenever an enquiry is conducted
and a particular property is identified as Vandi Pathai / Street meant for the
public usage and such passages, road or street is to be maintained as a Street
for the public usage, even if such property belongs to a private person. The
Revenue authorities are competent to decide these issues, and they are not
impleaded as parties in the civil suit.
10.Though the petitioner has chosen to withdraw the writ petition,
this observation and the recording of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench is made in the interest of public and for consideration of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while
adjudicating the issues by the revenue authorities as well as by the
respective Civil Courts dealing with such matters. Accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32219 of 2016
petitioners are permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
11.The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.11.2021
vs
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32219 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
vs
W.P.No.32219 of 2016 and
W.M.P.No.27936 of 2016
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
