Madras High Court
Vijayaraj vs Tamil Nadu Government on 25 April, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.658 of 2007
1.Vijayaraj
2.Venkidasamy
3.Veeralakshmi ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Government,
through its District Collector,
District Collector Office, Tuticorin.
2.Rural Development Officer,
Panchayat Union Office,
Kayathar.
3.President of Panchayat,
Panchayat Office,
K.Duraisamypuram Village & Panchayat,
Venkateshwarapuram Post,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
4.Dr.Seenivasan
5.Seeniammal
6.Veeralakshmiammal
7.Venkidasamy ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 made in A.S No.37 of
2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti confirming the judgment
and decree dated 12.12.2005 and made in O.S No.102 of 2004 on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
For Appellants : Ms.N.Krishnaveni, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran,
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
Mr.S.Sadeesh Kumar for R4 and R7
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiffs in O.S No.102 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Kovilpatti are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiffs filed
the said suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The official
defendants filed written statements controverting the plaint averments. Based
on the divergent pleadings, the trial court framed as many as five issues. The
first plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the
side of the defendants, one witness was examined. Advocate Commissioner's
report and plan and the surveyor's sketch were marked as Exs.C1 to C3. After
consideration of the evidence on record, by judgment and decree dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.12.2005, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs
field A.S No.37 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti. By the impugned
judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 confirmed the decision of the trial
court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, this second appeal
came to be filed.
2.After hearing the learned counsel on either side, one can notice that
the pipeline was laid only on the land earmarked as road margin. The specific
stand of the learned Government counsel is that a portion of the private
property belonging to the appellants was acquired for forming road. I
therefore cannot fault the impugned judgment and decree. However, taking
note of the special facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, the first
appellant is directed to submit a representation to the District Collector,
Tuticorin for issuance of patta. The District Collector, Tuticorin is directed to
issue appropriate proceedings mandating the jurisdictional Tahsildar to
enquire into the appellants' representation and if after leaving out the
acquired portion, particularly, the first appellant is occupying any private land,
direct issuance of patta in his favour. Such an enquiry will be conducted and
concluded and orders will be passed within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of representation from the first appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.With this direction to the first respondent, this second appeal is
disposed of.
25.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
skm
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.
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.
2.The District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
3.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
S.A.(MD)No.658 of 2007
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
