Madras High Court
A.Thirumalai Saminathan vs The District Collector on 6 March, 2023
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
A.Thirumalai Saminathan .. Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District.
2.The Divisional Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Trichy District.
5.The Executive Officer,
Ponnampatti Town Panchayat,
Thuvarankurichi Taluk,
Trichy District.
______________
Page No. 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
6.Thulasimani .. Respondents/ Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
against the order, dated 27.08.2012, made in W.P(MD)No.339 of 2012.
For Appellant : Ms.J.Maria Roseline
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the
learned Judge, who exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in W.P(MD)No.339 of 2012 dated 27.08.2012.
Before the writ Court, the appellant was a writ petitioner who filed the
said writ petition seeking a simple mandamus for a direction to the third
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the appeal filed by
the appellant dated 15.07.2010, which in fact was filed against the patta
granted in respect of the property in Survey No.672/2 and in favour of
the private respondent herein. Therefore, seeking such a direction to
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
decide the said appeal filed by the appellant before the third respondent,
the said writ petition was filed.
2. However, the learned Judge, who dealt with the said matter, has
gone by saying that a proceedings has been initiated and an order has
been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is under the
capacity of the Executive Magistrate, stating that the private respondent
had been in possession and enjoyment of the property which is a natham
poromboke land for 30 years and more, therefore, she is entitled to get
the patta, hence, the patta granted in favour of the private respondent is
to be sustained.
3. But that findings was not directly given by the Executive
Magistrate, only in the Section 133 of Cr.P.C proceedings, such orders
seems to have been passed.
4.The said order passed by the Executive Magistrate influenced the
mind of the learned Judge, who passed the order impugned stating that
by passing the said order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., the representation
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
given by the petitioner by way of appeal before the third respondent
dated 15.07.2010 having been considered was decided. Therefore,
nothing to be further pursued seeking any direction by way of mandamus
as has been sought for in the said writ petition, that is how the writ
petition has been dismissed by the learned Judge through the impugned
order dated 27.08.2012.
5. Assailing the said order impugned, the learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that, the appellant, who was the writ petitioner,
had sought for only a simple mandamus and the order passed if anything
under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., by the Executive Magistrate is no way
fulfil the disposal of the appeal dated 15.07.2010. Therefore, the
reasoning given for rejecting the writ prayer by the learned Judge is
erroneous, he contended.
6. Heard Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents and Mr.T.Sekar, learned counsel
appearing for the sixth respondent.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
7. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent would
submit that the land in question had been in possession and enjoyment of
the sixth respondent and she became the owner by virtue of the patta
issued in this regard as the long years possession in the natham land
having been recognised by the Revenue Authority, such a patta was
given to him and after enjoying the property for some years, according to
the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, the said property has been
sold to some third party in whose favour also patta was subsequently
issued.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that if at
all the appellant has got a grievance still that his appeal dated 15.07.2010
has to be independently considered and decided, the third respondent
Revenue Divisional Officer would undertake that exercise but that means
the order already been passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section
133 of Cr.P.C. will take care of the plea raised by the appellant before the
Revenue Divisional Officer and that has been taken note of by the
learned Judge, who rightly dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the
learned Special Government Pleader wants to sustain the order impugned
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
passed by the learned Judge.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and
have perused the material placed before this Court. Whether the land in
question is a private land capable of being issued patta or natham
poramboke land, is the matter to be decided by the Revenue Authorities
or whether the land in question is a private land or a public street as
claimed by the appellant also is a question which normally cannot be
decided by the Revenue Authorities. However, insofar as the patta
granted in favour of the sixth respondent, initially, in respect of the land
in question is concerned, whether the patta issued by the concerned
authority, namely, the Tahsildar, is to be sustained or not, can very well
be decided by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to whom
the appeal by way of representation dated 15.07.2010 since has been
filed by the appellant, the same should have been directed to be disposed
of by the third respondent on merits.
10. Subsequently, there might have been some order passed by the
Executive Magistrate invoking Section 133 of Cr.P.C., however that
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
cannot be treated as a reason for disposal of the appeal of the petitioner
by way of representation dated 15.07.2010. Moreover insofar as the order
passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 133 of Cr.P.C,
parallely, a criminal revision petition has been filed in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.
342 of 2012. When that being so, the order passed by the Executive
Magistrate under Section 133 of Cr.P.C, can be dealt with in the said
criminal revision petition, which is pending before this Court. However
that cannot be equated as an order passed by the third respondent
Revenue Divisional Officer on the appeal-cum-representation submitted
by the appellant dated 15.07.2010. Therefore, we are of the considered
view that the reason given by the learned Judge in rejecting the prayer
sought in the writ petition, through the impugned order, may not be
sustained and hence we feel that this writ appeal can be disposed with the
following order:
“That the order impugned passed by the
learned Judge is set aside. As a sequel, there shall be
a direction to the third respondent to decide the
appeal-cum-representation given by the appellant
dated 15.07.2010, challenging the patta issued in
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
favour of the sixth respondent and in this regard, it is
open to the appellant as well as the sixth respondent
to appear before the third respondent Revenue
Divisional Officer, who enabling this parties to
appear, shall give separate summon.
In this regard, since it has been brought to the
notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing
for the sixth respondent that the property has been
subsequently encumbered in favour of the third
party, that particulars also shall be furnished by the
sixth respondent to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
who, on receipt of the same, shall issue notice to the
present owner of the property or the present
purchaser of the property and after hearing them
also, a decision can be taken by disposing the said
representation-cum-appeal dated 15.07.2010 within
a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.”
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
11. With this order, this writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.K.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]
06.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
PJL
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District.
2.The Divisional Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Trichy District.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PJL
W.A(MD)No.700 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
06.03.2023
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
