Madras High Court
V.Mukkani vs Ashok Leyland Employees ... on 6 April, 2023
CRP.No.821 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No.821 of 2023
V.Mukkani ... Petitioner
/Vs/
1.Ashok Leyland Employees Co-operative House
Construction Society Limited,
KP (SPL) No.70.
Represented by its President R.Jayakumar,
Having office at No.2, Sasthrinagar 3rd Street,
Ennore, Chennai – 600 057.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 09.
3.The District Collector,
The Office of the Collector Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
4.The Tahsildar,
The Office of the Tahsildar,
Kundrathur, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.821 of 2023
Principal Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram in OS.SR.No.9032 of 2022
filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Joseph
for M/S.Chennai Law Associates
ORDER
Challenging the impugned common order passed in unnumbered
plaints which includes the plaint of the petitioner in OS SR No.9032 of
2022, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that
the plaintiff is in occupation of the suit property which is described in the
plaint schedule as part and parcel of the land measuring an extent of 0.67
hectares in S.No.361/1B in Aadhanoor Village, Madampakkam Post,
Kundrathur Taluk, Kanchipuram District with concrete house and that he is
in possession of the suit property ever since 1974 onwards, which the
revenue authorities/defendants attempted to evict him forcibly.
3. A writ petition in WP.No.26539 of 2009 has been filed by the first
respondent wherein this Court directed to proceed with eviction,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.821 of 2023
subsequently in SLP (Civil) Diary No.28721 of 2022 (Arising out of
impugned final judgment and order dated 03.08.2022 in WP.No.12781 of
2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by order dated
21.10.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted Status Quo to be
maintained. The relevant portion of which is extracted here under:
“Meanwhile, dispossession of the occupants on Survey
No.361/1B (0.67 hectares) in Adhanoor Village,
Sriperumpudur Taluk, District- Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu,
who are found to be in physical possession prior to
12.06.1990, shall remain stayed.
The State of Tamil Nadu, through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue is, meanwhile, directed to consider
the claim for rehabilitation of the above mentioned persons in
accordance with Government Policies/Standing Order and
submit a report on the next date of hearing.
We further direct that the families whose dispossession
has been stayed, shall maintain Status Quo and no further
construction at the site shall be raised by anyone”.
Thereafter, the present suit has been filed for declaration and permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.821 of 2023
injunction with respect of the suit property where the petitioner is residing.
The contention of the plaintiff is that by adverse possession he is having a
right over the property and to declare his title, the City Civil Court, Chennai
is a competent Court. Hence, he approached the Court by filing suit, but, the
learned Judge, was not inclined to take the plaint on file and rejected the
same, holding that, already, the respondents invoked under Section 14 of
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and eviction notice was ordered. So,
the suit as such is not maintainable before the Court. Accordingly, the suit
was rejected, but, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on
the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and argued that as on date, he is
in physical possession of the property and dispossession was already stayed
by the Honourable Apex Court, more particularly with regard to
S.No.361/B. So, in order to prove his title claim, he approached the City
Civil Court, but the same was not considered.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as perusal of the order passed by the Apex Court with
regard to S.No.361/1B in Adhanoor Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk,
Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu, granting stay of dispossession of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.821 of 2023
physical possession of the parties concerned and to maintain Status Quo,
and also granting liberty to the revenue officials to consider the claim for
rehabilitation in respect of the occupants in Suit Survey No.361/1B. Now,
as on date, the plaintiff hass constructed a house in that property and
enjoying the same, according to him, from the year 1970 onwards. So, he
claimed title based on the adverse possession. Therefore, primafacie I am of
the view that the suit filed by him as such is maintainable and hence, the
order passed by the trial judge is liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the
impugned order in OS.SR.No.9032 of 2022 dated 30.09.2022 on the file of
the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kancheepuram is hereby set aside. No
Costs. However, the trial Judge is directed to take the case on file and
dispose of the suit on merits in accordance of law as expediously as
possible.
06.04.2023
Vv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.821 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 09.
2.The District Collector,
The Office of the Collector Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
3.The Tahsildar,
The Office of the Tahsildar,
Kundrathur, Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.821 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
Vv
C.R.P.No.821 of 2023
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
