Madras High Court
The Tahsildar vs Somasundaram Chettiar Higher ... on 25 October, 2021
W.A.(MD) Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.A.(MD)Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4494 & 4543 of 2021
The Tahsildar,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai .. Appellant in both appeals
Vs.
1.Somasundaram Chettiar Higher Secondary School,
Okkur 630 557, Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District,
Rep.by its Secretary,
RM.Somasundaram ... Respondent/ Writ Petitioner
in W.A(MD)No.987/2021
2.Somasundaram Chettiar Primary School,
Okkur 630 557, Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District,
Rep.by its Secretary,
RM.Somasundaram ... Respondent/ Writ Petitioner
in W.A(MD)No.1004/2021
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
COMMON PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
against the order dated 27.01.2020 respectively in W.P(MD)No.26594 of
2019 and W.P(MD)No.26539 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Baskaran,
(in both W.As.) Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.P.Thilakkumar,
Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan
(in both W.As)
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice]
The appeals are utterly frivolous and it is alarming that the
public funds are misused for such baseless appeals.
2.The appeals are directed against similar orders dated January
27, 2020 by which the respondents to the writ petitions had been directed to
sanction a building licence upon the completion of the construction of a
compound wall by the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners apparently run a
primary and a secondary school at the relevant premises.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
3.According to the respondent-writ petitioners, there was a
dispute pertaining to the land in question which resulted in the writ
petitioners instituting a civil suit for a declaration and consequential
injunction. Though the suit was decreed, it was only an injunction which
was granted and the declaratory relief sought was declined. The writ
petitioners, thereafter, preferred a first appeal and the declaration as sought
was granted in course of the first appeal. It was the State Government
which was the principal defendant in the suit.
4.It is the further submission of the writ petitioners that a
belated second appeal was sought to be lodged after the delay of some 1300
days before this Court and it is the admitted position that the prayer for
condonation of such colossal delay has been rejected.
5.As a consequence of the rejection of the prayer for
condonation of delay pertaining to the proposed second appeal, the legal
effect is that the order passed by the first appellate Court becomes binding
on the State. Thus, the writ petitioners are found to be the owners of the
land in question and entitled to an injunction against the State Government
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
from interfering with the writ petitioners' possession in respect of the land in
question. In such circumstances, the order impugned appears to be perfectly
justified and does not call for any interference at all.
6.If the owner of a land seeks a sanction for a building and the
ground for declining the same is the lack of a compound wall, upon the
compound wall being put up, there cannot be any further impediment to the
sanction being granted. This is the long and short of the order impugned
herein.
7.The State's endeavour in preferring these appeals cannot be
appreciated. Indeed, there may be more to it that meets the eye in the State
having preferred an application for condonation of delay after nearly three
years from the date of the appellate decree. It also appears that the State has
failed to comprehend the effect of the dismissal of the application for
condonation of delay since such dismissal amounts to the second appeal
being dismissed and the appellate decree being confirmed.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
8.Since there is no infirmity in the orders impugned, the present
appeals in W.A(MD)No.1004 of 2021 and W.A(MD)No.987 of 2021 are
dismissed. The State will pay costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) to the writ petitioner-schools within a period of four weeks
from date. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)Nos.4494 and 4543 of 2021 are
closed.
[S.B., CJ.)] [M.D., J.]
25.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RM/MR
Note : In view of the present lockdown 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.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
RM/MR
W.A.(MD)Nos.987 & 1004 of 2021
25.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
