Madras High Court
S.Krishnamurthy vs The District Revenue Officer on 3 January, 2022
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.3047 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.21014 and 21018 of 2021
1.S.Krishnamurthy
2.S.Muthusamy
3.S.Gopal
4.Shanmugam
5.Venugopal
6.Ezhilarasi
rep. by their Power Agent N.Veerappan ..Appellants
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer,
District Collector Office,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Tashildar,
Tiruporur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
4.S.Vijaya
5.S.Naresh
6.Abel
7.Chockalingam
8.Elangovan
9.S.Kavitha
10.D.Karthi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
11.Lavanya
12.R.Loganathan
13.Murugan
14.S.Naresh
15.Kamesh
16.Santha Gowri
17.Suresh
18.K.Parimala
19.S.Padmavathi
20.Santha
21.Hemalatha Kanmani
22.Ravindrakumaran
23.Lokeshwaran
24.M.Santhagowri
25.V.M.Prakash
26.V.M.Dharmaprabha
27.V.M.Sasiprabha ..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 24.02.2020 made in W.P.No.13538 of 2016.
For Appellants .. Mr.N.Sivaprakash
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 24 February
2020 recorded on W.P. No.13538 of 2016, whereby the writ petition is
dismissed by learned single Judge. This appeal is by the original writ
petitioners.
2. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned order of learned single Judge is erroneous inasmuch as even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the liberty to approach the civil Court or the Tahsildar was not granted.
It is submitted that interference in the order of the first respondent
also needs closer scrutiny and therefore this appeal be entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellants and having
considered the material on record, this Court finds that the power of
attorney holder of the original writ petitioners attempted to unsettle
the revenue record after about a century through the second
respondent, which the first respondent did not approve. It is this cause
of action which is not entertained by learned single Judge while
rejecting the writ petition. Learned single Judge further confirmed the
order passed by the first respondent inter alia holding that there was
no occasion for the second respondent to pass the order which was the
subject matter before the first respondent.
4. The tenor of the impugned order goes to show that, firstly the
second respondent was not the proper authority to do so because it
was for the Tahsildar to look into it and secondly the attempt on the
part of the second respondent was to unsettle the revenue record
which had remained as it is for over a century. Noting these glaring
aspects, learned single Judge made certain observation which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
according to us, not only does not call for any interference in this intra-
court appeal, but we note that we are in full agreement therewith.
5. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
03.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
mmi/21
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
District Collector Office,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Tashildar,
Tiruporur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.3047 of 2021
03.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
