Madras High Court
Pl.Aavichi vs The District Collector on 5 July, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)No. 10079 of 2020
PL.Aavichi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2. The District Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate Complex, Sivagangai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
4. The Tahsildhar,
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
5. P.Ganespandian ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned
notice issued by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.A1/4529/2020, dated 03.09.2020
and quash the same.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, for
Mr.AL.Kannan
For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.M.Ramesh
Government Advocate
For R-5 : Mr.V.Karthik Raja, for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorari challenging the
impugned notice, dated 03.09.2020.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that there are rival claimants to
the property in dispute. Originally the land belongs to one Athmanathan son of
Appavu Aasari and his brother Kumarappan son of Appavu Asari. The said
Kumarappan had borrowed loan from one Krishnan son of Ramasamy Chettiar
and failed to repay, hence a suit for recovery of money was filed in O.S.No.23 of
2004 on the file of Sub Court Devakottai. Pending suit an Interlocutory
Application in I.A.No.89 of 2004 in O.S.No.23 of 2004 was filed for attachment
of the immovable property belonging to the said Kumarappan. The Court below
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
has allowed the said I.A.No.89 of 2004 vide order, dated 02.04.2004. The said
suit was allowed by an exparte Judgment, dated 22.04.2004. But the said
Ramasamy Chettiar neither taken steps to execute the decree nor registered the
decree before the registration department. The said decree is not reflecting in the
encumbrance certificate.
3. On the other hand the said Athmanathan had executed General
Power of Attorney in favour of his brother Kumarappan in respect of his share.
The said Kumarappan has sold the property to one G.Shanmugam through
registered sale deed dated 09.06.2008 for a valuable sale consideration. Who in
turn had sold to one R.Vijayaanand son of Ramamoorthy, who in turn had sold the
property to the petitioner. The petitioner after verifying the encumbrance had
purchased the property.
4. After lapse of 16 years the said Krishnan had lodged complaint on
27.01.2020 with the District Registrar and claimed that he got attachment of the
property and suppressing all facts the property is sold. After conducting enquiry,
the District Registrar declined the claim of the said Krishnan. But the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
Krishnan has granted General Power of Attorney to one Ganesapandian and the
agent had preferred police complaint and the petitioner was threatened. Hence the
petitioner filed O.S.No.27 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Munsif
Court Karaikudi. The respondents approached the revenue officials and filed a
petition on 07.07.2020 and on receipt the RDO has issued summons dated
03.09.2020 directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 07.09.2020. The
petitioner submitted preliminary objections that the title dispute is pending before
competent civil court and hence the revenue officials have no authority to
entertain the petition and decide the title of the property. But the respondents are
proceeding with the petition and is on the verge of passing final orders based on
the preliminary objections. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court
through this writ petition.
5. According to the petitioner the O.S.No.23 of 2004 an exparte order
was passed, but the Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the said
suit is pending. It is also seen that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.27 of 2020 and
the same is pending. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion when the
title dispute is pending before the competent civil court, then the revenue officials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
have not jurisdiction to enter any petition. In the civil suit the rights of the parties
would be decided. Until then, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, has no
jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry and to determine the title of the property.
6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned notice,
dated 03.09.2020 and the same is quashed. After determining the title of the
parties in the aforesaid suit, the parties will be entitled to take appropriate action.
The parties are at liberty to raise all issues before the Civil Court. It is made clear
this Court has not rendered any finding on the rights of the parties and this order
is not an impediment to determine the issue pending in the suit.
7. With these observations and directions, this Writ petition is
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 05.07.2023
Internet : Yes
ksa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
To
1. The District Collector,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
2. The District Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collectorate Complex,
Sivagangai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
4. The Tahsildhar,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.11566 of 2020
S.SRIMATHY, J
ksa
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No. 11566 of 2020
05.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
