Jamaludeen vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 67 Mad

Madras High Court

Jamaludeen vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 2 January, 2024

Author: D.Krishnakumar

Bench: D.Krishnakumar, R.Vijayakumar

                                                                  W.P.(MD) No.19258 of 2013


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 02.01.2024

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
                                                     and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                            W.P.(MD) No.19258 of 2013
                                            and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013

                 Jamaludeen                                                      ... Petitioner

                                                       -vs-

                 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                   Trichy District.

                 2.The Tahsildar,
                   Lalgudi Taluk,
                   Trichy District.

                 3.Rahmath Pallivasal, Mandurai
                   by its Muthawalli / President S.M.Sulaimaan,
                   S/o. Mohamed Abdul Khader,
                   Main Road Mandurai,
                   Lalgudi Taluk,
                   Trichy District.                                              ... Respondents

                 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to
                 issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in Na.Ka.A4/100/2013 dated


                 ____________
                 Page 1 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                         W.P.(MD) No.19258 of 2013


                 02.08.2013 and the order followed dated 22.08.2013 on the file of the 2nd
                 respondent and quash the same as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and
                 consequentially restrain the respondents from in any way interfering with the
                 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 9 Cents land along with shop building
                 bearing Survey No.48/8 situate at Nerinjalakudi Village, Lalgudi Taluk,
                 Trichirappalli District.


                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.S.Ramesh

                                  For Respondents     : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
                                                        Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2

                                                          ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the

second respondent in Na.Ka.A4/100/2013, dated 02.08.2013, and the

consequential order dated 22.08.2013 and consequently, sought a direction to

restrain the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the 9 cents land along with shop building bearing

Survey No.48/8 situate at Nerinjalakudi Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichirappalli

District.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The entire issue revolves around the property bearing S.No.48/8,

Nerinjalakudi Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichirappalli District, measuring an extent

of 0.09 cents, which according to the petitioner, belongs to him. He also filed a

suit in O.S.No.145 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichirappalli, for

declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction. The said suit was

transferred to the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi and renumbered as O.S.No.525

of 1996. The aforestated suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner on

28.02.2011 and an application has been filed by the tenant / third respondent to

set aside the exparte decree dated 28.02.2011 along with an application to

condone the delay and in the meantime the second respondent has passed the

impugned order by recording the statements of both parties made in the peace

committee meeting, convened by the second respondent. He also stated that the

said decision taken by both the parities will be subject to the result of the final

judgment to be passed by the Civil Court in the aforesaid suit.

3. According to the petitioner, he is not aware of the stage of the

application filed before the civil Court. Recording the statements of both sides,

the impugned order has been passed and it is also subject to the outcome of the

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

decision of the civil Court. Therefore, unless the civil Court decree is modified or

reviewed the said decree dated 28.02.2011 is binding on both parties. If the said

decree has become final, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy

either before the jurisdictional Court or the authorities concerned.

4. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

                                                               [D.K.K., J.]      [R.V., J.]
                                                                       02.01.2024
                 Index : Yes / No
                 Internet : Yes / No
                 SJ

                 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                   Trichy District.

                 2.The Tahsildar,
                   Lalgudi Taluk,
                   Trichy District.




                 ____________


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis




                                          D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
                                                        and
                                            R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

                                                                SJ









                                          02.01.2024

                 ____________


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis