Arumugam vs Selva Dhanasekaran
2022 Latest Caselaw 70 Mad

                                                                 1

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 03.01.2022

                                                               Coram

                                    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                         and
                             The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                                   W.A.No.3074 of 2021
                                                and C.M.P.No.21259 of 2021

                     Arumugam                                                        ..Appellant

                                                                Vs

                     1.Selva Dhanasekaran

                     2.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
                       Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

                     3.The District Revenue Officer,
                       Ramanathapuram District,
                       Ramanathapuram.

                     4.Thadiyarasu                                                ..Respondents


                                  Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the

                     order dated 05.10.2021 made in W.P.No.34293 of 2007.



                                       For Appellant      ..     Mr.K.Sivabalan




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                             2


                                                        JUDGMENT

(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 5 October

2021 recorded on W.P.No.34293 of 2007. This appeal is by the original

respondent No.3 in the writ petition.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the

impugned order is erroneous since the part of land in question, which

has nexus with other civil litigation, is not properly appreciated by the

learned single Judge. Learned advocate taken us through the

averments in the petition coupled with the findings recorded by the

learned single Judge and it is submitted that this appeal be

entertained.

3. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and

having considered the material on record, this Court finds that, by the

impugned order ultimately, the matter is remanded back to the State

authorities for passing fresh orders after hearing the original writ

petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (i.e., including the present

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

appellant). We also find that learned single Judge has taken into

consideration the contest put forward on behalf of the present

appellant while passing the impugned order. When on overall

consideration of the matter, learned single Judge ultimately directed

the State Authorities to consider the matter afresh and pass

appropriate orders, the same can not be termed to be an error

apparent on the face of record, which may call for interference in an

intra-court appeal.

4. For the reasons recorded above, this writ appeal is dismissed.

No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.21259 of 2021 is also dismissed.

(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,) 03.01.2022 Index:Yes/No raa/24

To

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

raa

W.A.No.3074 of 2021

03.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis