Madras High Court
Kandan @ Kandamanickam vs The Executive Magistrate Cum on 29 March, 2022
W.P(MD)No.2897 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.2897 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011
1. Kandan @ Kandamanickam
2. Kavitha
3. S.Natarajan ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
RDO Office,
District Collectorate,
Trichy -1,
Trichy District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Cantonment Police Station,
Cantonment,
Trichy – 1,
Trichy District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Trichy,
Trichy District.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2897 of 2011
4. T.Panneerselvam ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certioari, to call for the records
relating to the first respondent's proceedings made in Na.A1-834-2011
dated 09.02.2011 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar
For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.P.Karthick
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the order dated 09.02.2011
passed by the first respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy,
on the petition filed by the 4th respondent under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the pathway is an
exclusive property of the petitioner, which has already been declared
by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, in O.S.No.839 of 1990,
on 17.10.2006 and the order impugned in this writ petition was passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2897 of 2011
at the instance of the fourth respondent, who is also one of the plaintiffs
in the civil suit.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 submits that the land is a Government Poromboke
land, which has been used as a pathway and based on the revenue
records, the first respondent has passed the impugned order.
4. There is no representation for the fourth respondent.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused
the materials available on record.
6. Though the petitioner has referred to the Judgment dated
17.10.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, in
O.S.No.839 of 1990, declaring that it is a pathway, which is an
exclusive property of the petitioner, the suit in O.S.No.839 of 1990 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2897 of 2011
decided without impleading the necessary parties, namely, the revenue
officials. Since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli, who
passed the impugned order on the petition filed under Section 133
Cr.P.C. and also based on the revenue records, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The finding of the Court
in O.S.No.839 of 1990 is not binding the revenue officials when they
are not a party to the suit.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open
to the petitioner to establish his right before the appropriate civil Court
by impleading the necessary parties, namely, the revenue officials, as
parties to the Civil Suit. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.03.2022
ogy
Index : Yes / No.
Internet: Yes / No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2897 of 2011
To
1. The Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
RDO Office,
District Collectorate,
Trichy -1,
Trichy District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Cantonment Police Station,
Cantonment,
Trichy – 1,
Trichy District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Trichy,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2897 of 2011
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P.(MD)No.2897 of 2011
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
